I see that Bob has just written a similar post. But I was working on this when his went up, so I’m posting it anyway. đŸ˜‰
Around here, things seem to be going from bad to worse.
Police unions today called on President Obama and Governor Deval Patrick to apologize to “all law enforcement personnel,” saying they “deeply resent the implication” of their comments about racial profiling and the arrest of an African-American scholar last week at his home near Harvard Square…. “As far as the president’s comments, the governor’s comments, and comments that I did not hear that our mayor made, I think when the time is right they should make an apology to us,” [union president Steve] Killian said. “I think the president should make an apology to all law enforcement personnel throughout the entire country, [they] took offense to this.”
First, I don’t see why they are dragging the Governor into this. Whatever one may think of Obama’s “acted stupidly” remark, the Gov’s comments have been measured and respectful, while also recognizing what Gates experienced. Here’s the Gov:
“In some ways this is every black man’s nightmare and a reality for many black men…. I guess I would say you ought to be able to raise your voice in your own house without risk of arrest.”
You know what? I find it hard to argue with that. Racial profiling does happen — that’s why people like Officer Crowley do training sessions to try to avoid it. And once it was established that Gates was in his own home, there was no reason to radio the Harvard police for backup, and no reason to continue the conversation. The cops should’ve swallowed their pride as Gates yelled at them from inside his house and left, instead of getting him out on the porch where they could cuff him. Further, Patrick specifically declined comment on Obama’s “acted stupidly” remark. BMGer (and Republican) Kevin Sowyrda is right: Governor Patrick’s take on this incident has been “measured and mature” — and, I would add, constructive.
Which leads to the second point: apparently the unions think the charges shouldn’t have been dropped. Here’s police union lawyer Alan McDonald:
“That was a decision that was made without our input,” said McDonald, the lawyer. “We think in retrospect given the publicity that has transpired it would have been better to let the matter go forward to a trial of fact so that the truth could have been disclosed by means other than debates in the media that we’ve seen over the last few days.”
Oh, great idea, Alan. Let’s have a trial on a charge with a maximum penalty of a $150 fine that will become a media circus the likes of which Massachusetts hasn’t seen since Louise Woodward. Especially given the highly dubious legal basis for a “disorderly conduct” charge for what Gates did, even assuming the police report is entirely accurate, dropping the charges was the right call.
Meanwhile, in a very constructive move, the President personally called Officer Crowley. He had this to say about it:
“I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and the work of Sergeant Crowley specifically. I could have calibrated those words differently,” Obama said in a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room. “I told this to Sergeant Crowley. I continue to believe that there was an overreaction in pulling professor Gates out of his home and to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I’ve heard, that professor Gates overreacted as well.”
Let’s hope that Obama’s respectful call and comment will be enough to ratchet things down over at CPD HQ, and that all the players — Professor Gates, Officer Crowley, the Cambridge cops, and the politicians — are more interested in a constructive dialogue than scoring points going forward.
UPDATE: This just in from the White House (email, no link):
The President called and connected with Professor Gates at 3:15 this afternoon. They had a positive discussion during which the President told Gates about his call with Sgt. Crowley and statement to the media. The President also invited Gates to join him with Sgt. Crowley at the White House in the near future.
FURTHER UPDATE: Gates has accepted the offer.
“My entire academic career had been based on improving race relations, not exacerbating them. I am hopeful that my experience will lead to greater sensitivity to issues of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. If so, then this will be a blessing for our society. It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience,” he said.
Excellent.
I see that you touched on the central issues in the case, highlighted attorney MacDonald’s poorly thought through comment, and concluded with approval for President Obama’s adult behavior this afternoon.
<
p>I have to say that the acuity of posts on BMG never ceases to amaze me.
<
p>My hat is off to you.
because it invites far less vitriol by addressing Crowley in a more positive light rather than continuing to assert he’s some sort of arrogant asshole.
It wasn’t good police work, as the CPD and the Middlesex District Attorney have already said: “regrettable and unfortunate.” His failure to acknowledge that strikes me as weak and, more important from my perspective, damaging to his employer.
<
p>You certainly are right: David is far more judicious than me, but we almost always, as here, agree on substance.
<
p>In any event, one has to keep things interesting around here for you, Joe. đŸ˜‰
when I checked my email today and saw that press release, I nearly lost it. What idiocy!
<
p>The President should have shut up about this… and it goes away in a day or two. Now, he’s just extending this story… this stupid story… while we’re trying to pass fucking health care.
<
p>Also, I’m 99.999% sure at this point that Crowley is a complete douche bag, per all this police union shit. I think they were just absolutely terrified of having the police force being branded as having a race problem. That’s patently obvious to the parts of the country with a brain, but it would have become patently obvious to those who don’t when it happens in a city like Cambridge to a guy like Gates. So they went all out. Obama may have tried to stop them from continuing so, but now they’ll just go for the jugular, since they taste blood.
Rye, please don’t make the mistake that I have made hundreds of times by prejudging someone that I really don’t know too well. I am usually wrong 90% of the time and regret my rash judgments. You know that sometimes “shit happens” to all of us, one way or another. I don’t know Crowley either, but I know that someone who tried so hard to save Reggie Lewis’ life is not a bad guy.
until he started making all these media rounds – and refused to apologize, even just to diffuse this situation.
Ryepower12, when did you become a poster from the fringe?
Or he might even be in the hate phase by now.
<
p>By all accounts, he is no doubt heading for suffering.
for president obama to have blundered into this matter in a national news conference on healthcare reform (not to mention his choice of words), he should be given credit for his proactive efforts at resolving the whole mess.
<
p>i hope that all parties have the maturity to accept the presidents invitation, kiss and make nice for the cameras on the south lawn, and then file this whole thing away as a bad/learning experience for us all.
The most outrageous comments at the press conference were from the police union lawyers, who essentially said that cops have leeway to judge the meaning of “disorderly conduct” because of uncertainty over the scope of the crime. What? Crimes so vague as to give the police discretion to define prohibited conduct are unconstitutional. Fortunately the Supreme Judicial Court has carefully set out the elements of “disorderly conduct,” and “expressive conduct” doesn’t cut it. See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 587 (1975). Justices Brennan and Douglas are rolling over in their graves.
Everyone talks about how the police abused his power by arresting Gates, which is certainly something a strong argument can be made for.
<
p>Accusations of racism are very serious these days. People can lose their jobs and face incredible repercussions for being labeled a racist, especially if by someone of influence. This is a good thing, though, because if someone is actually a racist, then they should face hardship for such a position.
<
p>Gates more than anyone else should know the power of allegations of racism in these times. Is it appropriate for him to dilute the charge by tossing it so quickly? I would say it isn’t. Look at the shitstorm that it caused.
<
p>That’s why I think both of them need to apologize to each other. Crowley has the power to arrest Gates, but Gates (and other influential blacks) could essentially launch a wrecking ball at the Crowley’s career by leveling the charge of being racist — especially at a police officer.
<
p>Both are men who have their respective “power”, but it would appear both of them need to have the responsibility that comes with power speech. Both men have earned it with hard work, diligence and dedication in their fields. Maybe the have both become complacent in their power? Who knows.
<
p>I just hope this gets resolved over a beer in the oval office rather than in a courtroom. For everyone’s sake.
I doubt that Gates has a strong claim under the Equal Proection Clause, but he has a powerful claim for violation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which means that Cambridge and Sgt. Crowley probably owe him money.
A solution to this problem that causes society to be better as a whole rather than worse would be for it to be a teachable moment. Something I’m sure the professor appreciates. Suing the police would only further inflame the situation and further tighten the belts of a police force that is probably just as hard hit by the economic recession as any other has been.
<
p>Everyone comes out looking good if this is resolved in a lawyer-free, civil and understanding way.
<
p>Just because you can sue doesn’t mean you should. Like I said before: if we’re going to start the suing game, might as well slap Gates with a defamation suit and really make this ugly. Let’s all sell our souls to the lawyers. (no offense David)
But to get there both sides need to stop being so damn macho! And, legally speaking, Gates has a relatively better case than Crowley. So it’s in Crowley’s interest to soften up.
He has a national reputation which I believe has been tarnished by his boorish behavior. A drawn out trial will only serve to highlight this (regardless of the flimsy legal justification for the quick ride downtown). I’m sure his buddy Barrack wants it to go away. And I’m sure it will. As you have seen, Crowley is a pretty reasonable and level headed guy
<
p>I recognize that the people who have portrayed Officer Crowley as a jack booted fascist monster cannot see this, but I believe most of the country has concluded that Prof. Gates was probably the bigger profiler here.
<
p>Thank heavens this incident involved such an apparently good guy like Crowley. If the officer in question didn’t have Crowley’s bona fides, we might not have had the chance to illustrate how important it is not to keep screaming racist accusation at a police officer who is investigating a crime.
Wrong, sir. Crowely charged “disorderly conduct” which does not cover “expressive conduct.” It is not professional behavior to make an arrest when a citizen is exercising First and Fourth Amendment rights. Cambridge is not Teheran.
Defamation is not covered by the First Amendment.
Defamation is not a ground for an arrest. The charge against Gates was “disorderly conduct” which explicitly does not cover expressive conduct.
<
p>Do you really mean to suggest that the First Amendment be “dropped”?
I was saying he wasn’t exercising his First Amendment rights and that you need to stop mentioning it because such a right was not violated because such a right was not being expressed.
<
p>By drop I mean you need to drop it from your argument. Stick to the 4th.
“This is what happens to Black men in America”
<
p>This is not political speech? Really?
Simply as a practical matter, just as above it was mentioned that just because you can sue does not mean you should I would say that just because you can invoke the first amendment doesn’t mean you should. This isn’t to say that if I were a judge and the case came before me I wouldn’t rule in Gates’ favor on the free speech; in fact I probably would, but this is one of those times where I feel like saying, “You have the right to remain silent – and PLEASE DO SO!”
The first amendment argument throws out the disorderly conduct charge. So why wouldn’t he? And there’s no right to remain silent about any alleged defamation, since that is not a criminal offense.
That doesn’t mean you can’t get sued civily for it though.
But I never said it was a crime. I said it was important not to do it. I hope Professor Gates learned this. I learned a long time ago not to mouth off to a police officer.
because you obviously don’t know the elements of the tort of defamation. If you want a society where lawyers hold no sway over law enforcement, try Iran.
I clearly have no idea that the elements are a
<
p>1. A false and defamatory statement.
<
p>2. The publishing of 3rd parties of such a statement
<
p>and 3. such a statement being one that the speaker either knew or should have known was false.
<
p>Gosh, if I knew such ludicrous things, then I would know that Professor Gates made the false and defamatory statement that Sgt. Crowley is racist and bias, and I would know that he published this to 3rd parties by shouting it in public, and I would know that such a statement would be damaging to the career and reputation of the person such a statement was made about.
<
p>Part 3? Professor Gates made no effort and took no care to actually find out if Sgt. Crowley was a racist or not, and leveled such serious and egregious accusations with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
<
p>If you want to live in a society where people can ruin your lives with false charges of racism and have it called free speech…go found your own crummy country.
It’s much harder for a public official to prove slander than it would be for a private citizen. Crowley would have to prove that when Gates said the police were racial profiling, he didn’t believe his own accusation to be true or at least had serious doubts in his own mind about whether it was true.
You can be at fault for defamation by either malice or negligence, not whether or not he thought it was true. Since he did not have evidence to support a charge of racism, he was negligent, and in the delivery of the accusation, malicious.
<
p>You are correct that there is a standard for public officials, which is malicious intent must be proven. I think a reasonable person can assume that when Professor Gates was in public, yelling that this police officer was a racist, one of his intents would be to cast this officer a light that would cause his career to suffer because he is a racist. Had Crowley actually been a racist, this would be understandable. However, since it isn’t true, Gates was acting in the intent on harming Crowley’s reputation based on a false and defamatory pretense.
<
p>I don’t think a case would be a slam dunk, but it’s definitely there.
<
p>That’s a stretch. First, we don’t know that Gates “did not have evidence”. He may have perceived Crowley as ‘threatening’ and perhaps condescending leading to an (erroneous) conclusion of racism. There’s nothing to support the contention that Gates KNEW Crowley was not a racist. We do know that Crowley, uninvited followed Gates INTO the house as Gates retrieved his license. Gates stated he felt threatened. The police report is silent on what was said or how Crowley acted, in order to make Gates so infuriated that he left his home, at which point an arrest was made. Maybe Crowley said or did nothing untoward and Gates just lost it. Maybe something else happened. But it’s not possible, at this remove, to determine that Gates knew Crowley was NOT a racist.
<
p>I’ve been reading, discussing, listening and parsing everything on this subject and I STILL cannot connect the dots between Gates’ actions and an arrest for ‘disturbance’… On his front porch. It makes ZERO sense.
<
p>
<
p>Wow. Just… wow. Following this logic, every third bust in the entire United States probably has standing for a defamation suit. People YELL at cops. ALL. THE. TIME. Somebody ought to get Mel Gibson a lawyer cause we know exactly what he said to the cops…
<
p>For the record, I don’t believe Crowley is racist. Gates might simply be guilty of jumping to a conclusion. Yawn. I do think, however, that Crowley handled the situation poorly and may have attempted retaliation for Gates remarks. I can’t begin to say how completely wrong that would be.
<
p>
“You don’t know who you’re messin’ with!” would also be good evidence that Gates intended to use his influence and friends to further disseminate the false accusation that Crowley is a racist.
First the tantrums about civilian flaggers, now defending an inappropriate response by an officer. I don’t care what Gates said – a professional response once the officer knew Gates was in his own home would have been to de-escalate the situation and leave. Instead the officer indulged himself in a power trip. I get that Obama has other priorities and wants to defuse this story (it was an uncharacteristic lack of discipline for him to wade in on the issue at all), but I don’t like to see him stepping back on the issue, and I don’t like seeing the Cambridge officer rewarded with national attention for being a jerk.
He’s an arrogant, fascist, jack bootted thug! How could our President be so wrong!
is for Crowley to talk about other times he’s arrested people for disorderly conduct and enlighten us as to what he feels does and does not constitute this most meager of offenses. Has he ever arrested a middle-class white guy for disorderly conduct? What were the details of that arrest?
How often do police actually arrest people for this? What is a typical scenario? If police are, in general, misapplying the law- then that’s something that needs to be addressed. Chances are, if they did it to Gates they probably do it all the time to less influential people, who just accept it as a police prerogative.
(This will be my personal last comment on this topic, as others have pretty much done a better job of analyzing this issue than me, and it’s probably gone on too long already.)