Most importantly, the 911 caller makes NO REFERENCE to “two black men.” Instead, she clearly avoids making any sort of racial identification, even after prompting by the 911 dispatcher. Her attorney says that she never mentioned “two black men.” Instead, her attorney says:
Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene… And she never said to any police officer or to anybody ‘two black men.’ She never used the word ‘black.’ Period.
I’m not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don’t care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. … All she reported was behavior, not skin color.
Similarly, the radio transmissions offer NO evidence of disruptive behavior by Professor Gates. Officer Crowley’s report says “…Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units.” No such “yelling” is audible on the released tape of Officer Crowley’s radio exchanges.
The CPD has, so far, offered ZERO evidence to support Officer Crowley’s version of events. The evidence that has been released supports the 911 caller’s contrary view.
No wonder the charges against Professor Gates were dropped. What do you suppose our own Attorney Ernie will do with these nuggets? The hole dug by the CPD is deep and getting deeper. No wonder it and its defenders want this story to die.
First, the motives of the 911 caller should no longer be in question. She called because she (and “this older woman) thought someone might have been breaking in and not because of any racial bias.
<
p>Second, there is no discrepancy at all between the tape of the 911 call and the police report. The police report does not address the 911 call in any significant way. The call transcript is consistent with the police report in every way,
<
p>Third, though, is what I don’t understand. It seems clear that either Crowley lied unnecessarily and in considerable detail about his interactions with “a white female” at the scene who “told him” that she was the 911 caller and that she saw “two black men.” Or Ms Whalen (through her attorney) lying in saying flat out that she never had any conversation with Crowley at the scene. This is a very disturbing discrepancy.
While that may be true in the most technical sense, I think this all goes to your third point. We now know exactly what the 911 call said. So how is is possible that the 911 caller told Crowley that there were “two black men” with “backpacks” in the house? She told the dispatcher that she thought one man (presumably the Moroccan driver) sort of looked Hispanic; she had no idea about the other one. Yet Crowley says she referred to “two black males.” With “backpacks.”
<
p>Something seriously doesn’t add up here.
… it can be assumed that what she said on the phone and what she said in person shouldn’t have to agree. Indeed, if she stuck around after the call long enough to be interviewed later, it can be assumed as reasonable that she might make further direct observations.
<
p>Or perhaps not… I think it’s standard procedure to keep her on the line until the cops get there. If that’s what happened here, whatever further observations she may have made would have presumably made it into the call transcript.
<
p>Of course, the direct discrepancy that there even was an interview between Crowley and the woman, if true, seems most salient.
I can’t find where she said that. Got a link?
It now sounds like Ms. Whalen was relaying this call on behalf of “an elderly woman”. It sounds like Ms. Whalen was skeptical that it was a problem, but was putting stock in an elderly neighbor’s fears. It is just not possible to know if the genesis of this incident was based on a prejudiced view of the action of Mr. Gates and his driver. All that is locked in the head of, well, I guess this “elderly woman” who is Gates’ neighbor.
<
p>At least there is now a more sensical explanation as to why Ms. Whalen called this in – as she said herself, she wouldn’t have noticed it at all except that this elderly woman — a neighbor — pointed it out to her. If the elderly woman knew about the break-in last week (which is plausible), then that is also a much better explanation as to why a situation which appeared to not be that disturbing to Ms. Whalen got called in.
…if the person was a neighbor, why didn’t she recognize Gates?
The caller, Ms. Whalen, stated to the 911 operator that she would not have noticed this activity except that the elderly woman pointed it out to her. She also stated that she saw the men open the door with their shoulder.
<
p>That means the elderly woman became concerned enough to bring this activity to the attention of Ms. Whalen before entry was gained. She saw two men on the porch trying to open the door and she believed it to be suspicious behavior even though she did not know who lived there (otherwise she would have recognized Gates).
<
p>Absent the actual “shoulder into the door”, what exactly is suspicious enough about two men on a porch trying to open a door?
<
p> If the door is stuck then they would be there longer than normal – this could cause suspicion, especially if the neighbor was aware of previous break-ins.
I can understand why this woman wants to clear her name, and I think the Globe and Herald were right to give her the chance to do so.
<
p>But last week, I recall several strident, emphatic comments along the lines of “Should she have ignored the situation because they were black? Should CPD not have responded?”
<
p>So I fail to see what this adds to our understanding of CPD’s actions.
The Globe posted this story about the tapes at 3:35pm and at 5:45 there are already 524 comments from readers. This story cannot be lost, it has to be discussed and learned from.
If she identified them as two black males it just means that these gentlemen she was concerned about were black. Similarly the dispatcher asked the question not because he/she was racist, but because its simply a way to identify potential offenders. And yes many immediately jumped on this poor woman for being racist, just as they assumed the CPD was racist, and some still do. How about we approach this situation like any rational person would-by waiting for ALL the facts to come out and then examine the situation with FULL knowledge of what the facts are? But no its more fun to examine it through the prism of our biases to presume that it be racist cops or uppity blacks that are at fault. Its a complicated case that, pun intentional, can’t be seen through a black and white lens.
I think it was a “simple” case and not complicated. Someone thought they saw a crime and reported it. The police investigated to check who the people were breaking into the house. As Obama said, so far so good. Then one of the people being asked to ID themselves has a nicky-fit, starts hurling insults and screaming at the police until after repeated warnings the cop arrests the guy for disorderly conduct. I think this was s imple case of someone losing their temper and race had nothing to do with it. But people are so OVERsensitive to race that anything remotely close to being racially motivated gets commandeered by the left and the race (pun intended) is off.
Officer Crowley’s police report claims that Professor Gates was “yelling very loud”, but there is no audible yelling on the radio transcript. There are conflicting reports of the scene, and none of it supports Officer Crowley’s claim — the claim that you now repeat as if it were established fact.
<
p>I’m confident that the history of disorderly conduct arrests by the CPD and by Officer Crowley is already being closely analyzed. The results of that analysis will help clarify the question of whether a race-related pattern of disorderly conduct arrests does or does not exist.
<
p>In the meantime, it seems clear enough to me that Officer Crowley was unduly caught up in the heat of the conflict. I don’t care whether or not Professor Gates lost his temper — he had every right to do so, and I suspect that Officer Crowley knew that.
<
p>Officer Crowley’s job was to walk away calmly. He failed to do that.
<
p>Who exactly has made comments which “conflict” with Crowley’s claim? I know Officer Lashley who was ON THE SCENE backs up Crowley 100%.
<
p>WHat right did Gates have to lose his temper? What egregious event occurred for him to have the right to lose his temper. Are you referring to being asked to ID himself at the scene of an investigation?
He had the right to lose his temper because HE WAS IN HIS OWN HOME. The moment Officer Crowley confirmed his identity, Officer Crowley had NO legal justification for being there. Professor Gate’s state of mind became irrelevant at that instant.
According to Crowley’s own report, a lot of things happened before he asked Gates for ID:
<
p>1) He saw Gates through the front door.
<
p>2) He asked Gates to step outside (there is no mention of him ringing the bell or knocking — so how did he get Gates’ attention? Maybe by speaking loudly?)
<
p>3) Gates allegedly said “no, I will not”, and then asked who Crowley was.
<
p>4) Crowley identified himself as a member of the CPD and gave his name, and said he was investigating a report of a break in progress.
<
p>5) Gates opened the door and allegedly said “Why, because I’m a Black man in America”?
<
p>6) Crowley asked Gates if anyone else was in the residence.
<
p>7) Gates allegedly replied “none of your business” and allegedly accused Crowley of being racist.
<
p>8) Crowley told Gates he was responding to a citizen’s call.
<
p>9) Gates made a phone call, allegedly telling the other person that there was a racist cop in his house.
<
p>10) Crowley radioed to headquarters. This is important, because this may correspond to the call where Crowley says that he is with someone who he believes to be a resident, but the CPD should “keep the cars coming”.
<
p>11) Gates allegedly tells Crowley that he has no idea who he’s dealing with.
<
p>12) Crowley states in his report that at this point he believes Gates was a resident.
<
p>13) Only then does Crowley ask Gates for ID.
<
p>14) Gates gives Crowley his Harvard ID (after “initially refusing” — which translate into Gates saying “what’s your name and badge”) and Crowley then calls the Harvard Police. Gates says he gave his drivers license too, Crowley’s report does not mention a drivers license, but does not say that only the Harvard ID was shown either.
<
p>So it seems that before even asking for Gates’ ID, Crowley called for backup, even though he believed that there was no crime taking place. He called the Harvard police after establishing that Gates was a legal resident of the building.
<
p>Why did Crowley call for more police from 2 different departments after he very clearly knew that this was not a B & E?
<
p>The police were already on the way and said to keep them coming. One reason to keep them coming is because he said who he thought was the resident was being uncooperative. He still is not sure it is the resident, the person is uncooperative, and he’s there alone.
<
p>
We’re still talking about a 58 year old man with a cane, right?
Everyone wants this story to die, broseph. Everyone.
You sound like Yogi Berra — “Nobody goes to that restaurant any more, it’s too crowded.”
<
p>In my view, this story is shining a harsh and much-needed spotlight on excessively authoritarian and racist police behavior. That’s why I think this story has legs, and I hope it stays in the spotlight long enough for people to finally see the abuse that uniformed thugs too-often heap upon whomever they choose — often people of color.
had any actual racism gone on. More and more it appears that Gates was the only one who had some sort of preconcieved notions based on race. The caller and the officer are both obviously not racist. Your saintly professor, however, threw a shitfit about the white man in his house.
Gates should be allowed to do stuff like that. If Crowley didn’t want to put up with Gates’s shitfit he should have just left the premises.
I’m not sure how neglecting to mention race in a 911 call makes the caller automatically “not racist” (though I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that she was not), but how can you so easily exonerate the elderly woman who pointed out the activity to the caller? The elderly woman was suspicious because she saw two people trying to open a door in the middle of the afternoon to a residence where she did not know the resident.
<
p>What transformed this action into “possible criminal activity” in her mind? Maybe knowledge of the earlier break-in, but also maybe the sight of two dark-skinned men. I know for sure, based on a lot of experience, that this would make the hair on my grandmother’s back stand up primarily because they were Black. That was the way she was raised, she was from a different era where the presence of Black men was automatically suspicious, perhaps just because in her day, it was not common to see Black men outside of their segregated neighborhoods.
<
p>We’ll never know for sure — the people quick to claim that there was absolutely no racism involved here (who often follow that statement up with “except for Gates”) have no basis for that claim because all this is inside people’s heads. They just want it to be that way.
Neither woman did anything wrong. It wasn’t racist to suspect a crime, and it wouldn’t have been racist to describe the suspects if either woman had seen them. If a passerby saw anyone (including me) attempting to force my front door, I would be thank them for reporting the activity. In my view, that’s what being a good neighbor is about.
<
p>The point is that Ms. Whalen did not mention race. It seems increasingly clear that the only person who mentioned the race of the suspects was Officer Crowley himself, in his initial police report.
<
p>That report was written after the fact; no evidence to support it has been offered so far. There is, on the other hand, unassailable recorded evidence that Ms. Whalen did NOT mention race in her 911 call, and clearly stated in that call that she had not seen the suspicious persons clearly enough to identify their race.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one. I work on my house a lot. I’m outside of it, sometimes on ladders, sometimes working on things like doors, windows, or siding. I’d absolutely hate it if someone called the police every time I did something like this in the middle of the afternoon, when I’m not exhibiting any other odd behavior, and when I’m dressed the part of a homeowner, not a burglar (i.e. no mask)
<
p>I want my neighbors to look out for my house. I don’t want every yahoo in the world to project their own definitions of “suspicious” onto what I do at my house and then call in the cops.
I’m only suggesting that suspicion of a break-in at a neighbor’s property is not, in and of itself, wrong (unless carried to excess). If a neighbor or passerby has such a suspicion, and calls it in, it isn’t racist to then respond to a request for a description from the dispatcher.
<
p>I therefore don’t think Ms. Whalen did anything wrong, especially since she clearly stated that she did not see either “suspicious person” well enough to offer a description.
<
p>I have locked myself out of my car from time to time. I have used a slim-jim (fashioned from a coat-hanger) to open the lock. I would not be offended if a passerby (who didn’t recognize me) called that in as a suspected car theft in progress.
“Saintly” (your characterization, not mine) or not, Professor Gates was the only one who had an unassailable right to express whatever opinion he wanted to in his own home after Officer Crowley had confirmed his identity. Professor Gates was under no obligation to be courteous, civil, or respectful. Ms. Whalen should never have been accused of anything.
<
p>The behavior of Officer Crowley and the CPD, on the other hand, was suspect to begin with and is getting more so as the story unfolds. It was Officer Crowley who refused to walk away from the scene after confirming that no burglary was in progress.
<
p>We know that Professor Gates is black and Officer Crowley is white. When you can show that Officer Crowley arrests whites with the same frequency as blacks, you’ll have a stronger case. That hasn’t been shown yet.
<
p>We know that Officer Crowley described the two “suspicious persons” as “black males” in his police report, attributing that characterization to Ms. Whalen. Ms. Whalen vigorously denies that she saw or mentioned the race of either SP. Ms. Whalen vigorously denies, through her attorney, that she ever spoke with Officer Crowley, directly contradicting his formal police report. The 911 recording supports Ms. Whalen’s position. Officer Crowley has offered no evidence to support his version alleged conversation.
<
p>So what we know is that a white police officer arrested a black resident for “disorderly conduct” just outside his own home, after confirming that no crime had been committed.
<
p>It would seem that the principal offense, in Officer Crowley’s eyes (and apparently in yours), was that Professor Gates was “uppity” — that he had an attitude. You apparently assert that this has nothing to do with the race of Professor Gates. I disagree.
You should go join the tin foil hat club with the birthers and truthers with that kind of refusal to aknowledge reality.
<
p>Crowley isn’t a racist. You lose. Get over it.
The cast from Avenue Q would like to remind you that
<
p>
<
p>Everyone’s a little bit racist
<
p>
<
p>JoeTS, racism isn’t a coin with white hood on one side and a seeing eye dog on the other. You stating that Crowley isn’t a racist is nonsense, both because (a) you use no evidence whatsoever, and because (b) a negative can’t be proven. Linking those who link Crowley arresting a black man at his home for the “crime” of being upset that a cop came to arrest him to racism isn’t anything at all like the birthers who fail to acknowledge the half dozen really solid pieces of evidence that Obama was born in Hawai’i.
<
p>
<
p>At the end of the day, both Crowley and Gates behaved badly. The only difference is that Gates didn’t ask for Crowley’s help, didn’t want Crowley on his property, and unlike Crowley, didn’t exert force to back up his large ego.
then over the past week we would have learned about the racial complaints filed about him in a city where the rather affluent black residents would be more likely to do so. We haven’t heard of any. As a matter of fact, he has zero formal complaints filed against him for over a year.
<
p>If he was a racist, then why would a black superior officer have appointed him to teach a class on not racially profiling?
<
p>If he was a racist, why would that multiracial contingent of officers stood in solidarity with him?
<
p>If he was a racist, why would he have tried so hard to save the life of a dying black man while working at a predominantly Jewish university?
<
p>I haven’t said that he doesn’t have a big ego, and I’ve aknowledged the arrest was wrong, but there is absolutely no reason for people to still insist on making the extremely egregious charge that he is a racist police officer.
<
p>This is just ridiculous. Its like when the caller was found to not have mentioned race and others were like “oh well! just because she didn’t mention it doesn’t mean she wasn’t thinking it!” give me a break.
<
p>This whole racism argument is a joke. If people had stayed on message and made this a 4th amendment argument from the get-go and left these ridiculous racism charges out of it, then Sargeant Crowley would have probably already gotten his disciplinary action taken against him and this story would be dead.
Did you miss this from the post you replied to?
<
p>
<
p>I have a friend who is friends with Black people. That friend confided in me that he doesn’t want his daughter to date Black men. What is he? Is he not racist because he never told his Black friends that, because he never uses the n-word in public?
<
p>I think that the people adamantly arguing that no racism exists here don’t quite understand the subtleties of racism.
<
p>They don’t know that racism is watching the Black woman a little more carefully at the checkout counter to see if she is using an EBT card to buy those lobsters, looking at her nails, noting the car she gets into.
<
p>Racism is crossing the street to avoid walking by 3 or 4 Black teens, but feeling fine walking by 3 or 4 white teens.
<
p>Racism is doing a little extra background checking on the Black applicant who has a PhD listed on his resume.
<
p>Racism is a willingness to give cash to the white kid at your door who claims to be doing a walk for charity, but giving a check to the Black kid at your door, because you don’t quite believe that it’s not some kind of hustle.
<
p>Racism is having an uneasy feeling when a Black family moves in next door, questioning whether it’s time to put the house on the market.
<
p>Racism is a feeling that when you hear that 5 candidates were interviewed and the single Black candidate was hired, race must have been a factor in the decision.
<
p>Racism is doing a double-take when a 20-year old Black kid is driving a Mercedes, but not even noticing a 20-year old white kid driving a Mercedes.
<
p>Racism is feeling perfectly safe in a bad neighborhood occupied by whites, but not so safe in a bad neighborhood occupied by non-whites.
<
p>There are many subtleties of racism, and until a person’s race is seen as having only as much consequence as their hair or eye color, or whether they are left or right handed, it cannot be said that racism does not exist. Read the comments on any newspaper site, and notice how when a non-white person does something wrong (like commit a crime), scores of people point out his race immediately — and none point out his hair color, his gender, or his educational background? Why? Because a lot of people feel that the person’s race is somehow relevant to the commission of a crime. They backpeddle and say “but look at how many of group X commit crimes, that’s a fact” — yet they never look any further, never look at any other factors.
That Crowley acted out racism, however subtle, I would recognize it. From all accounts though, everything points to him not being afflicted with such a malady.
<
p>You should also recognize that racism is also something that Hispanics and even whites are targets of. Not on the same level as blacks, but racism is a black man assuming a cop is targeting him for being black just because the cop is white.
To be clear: reactions like Mr. Gates, however inappropriate or appropriate, do not happen in a vacuum.
Obviously Sgt. Crowley did not receive the 911 call. Rather, he spoke to a witness, or witnesses, at the scene after he arrived. There’s no tape of that conversation. The 911 caller does not have a “contrary view.”
<
p>Why is it alarming to you that the people observed forcing the door at Prof. Gates’ house would be described as black by an observer? That’s not racist, that’s just an honest description of the people who, evidently, were forcing the door. A description that would be helpful to police investigating a potential crime.
<
p>The progressive blogosphere has gone off the deep end on this one and may end up alienating a lot of people with its rush to judgment. And if you think that’s concern trolling, well, GFY. I want to see the president succeed and this isn’t helping.
Where did “two blacks” come from?
Crowley’s report says that he spoke to the woman who called 911, i.e., Ms. Whalen. We now know that she had no idea of the race of one of the men, and thought that the other was maybe Hispanic but she wasn’t sure. We also know that she saw that the two men had suitcases (not backpacks), which is why she thought maybe they lived there.
<
p>So where did Crowley get the “two black males” information? Or the “backpacks”? Surely not from Ms. Whalen, yet there’s no other person identified in the report to whom he spoke. That’s what doesn’t make sense.
If he did, without someone else previously telling him so,
he really does have a lot of explaining to do.
… this can be said to be problem yet until other details are known with regard to the opportunity she had for further observation after the call but before the interview (if it happened).
<
p>
If she had said she thought they were white would anyone have even responded? I doubt it.
with NO PHYSICAL description? Should they have to play a guessing game when they get there. Can we still use descriptions short/tall, fat/skinny, white/black to describe robbers, rapists, murderers or just let cops guess at those crime scenes too?
short/tall, fat/skinny… did they ask any of those questions? no. Couldn’t the dispatcher simply ask for a description? Race was the ONLY identifying factor asked for, and the dispatcher seemed to be asking the question as a means of determining the validity of the caller’s complaint. Rapists and murderers?! The caller even said she was only calling because her elderly neighbor was concerned. And you expect me to believe that asking the caller about Professor Gates’ race wasn’t racially charged at all? Isn’t this whole fiasco about CPD’s racial insensitivity?
It’s obvious the Police department in People’s Republic of Cambridge is nothing more than a bunch of neocon racist bicycle riders.
Any time I’ve talked to police or 911, I was asked about race.