Stanley Fish, a longtime friend and colleague of Gates’s, in his New York Times blog summarizes the racist treatment Gates has suffered since his earliest days as a professor. It’s important for those of us who have followed his career to remind people that, despite all these experiences, he has never been one to take simplistic approaches to race or to paint white people with a broad brush. In particular I recall a moment in one of his documentaries when he interviewed a young Boston gang member. The boy was complaining about being held back by racism and about having to turn to street crime to make money and gain respect. Instead of sympathizing, Gates expressed bewilderment at this worldview and its origins, and contrasted it to the bootstrap ethos he knew in the black community of his own youth, which faced similar poverty and considerably greater racism.
For the police perspective, consider that of Brandon del Pozo, a former NYC beat cop, now an internal affairs captain and a grad student in philosophy. In a piece published at Crooked Timber, del Pozo lays out the policing logic of the situation. He says he thinks he would not have arrested in the situation, but urges the broader point that we should want the police to be able to maintain control over the environment of an emergency call, including the sound and attitude level of all present, until they have completed their investigation by the process they are taught.
Finally, for a progressive viewpoint that does not pointlessly flame the police, Digby situates the incident, and critiques del Pozo’s analysis, in the context of creeping authoritarianism in the U.S. in the last decade. Important take-away FACT: it is now legal, and socially accepted, for police to torture and sometimes kill people with electric shocks (tasers) and corrosive acids (pepper spray) simply because of the words coming out of their mouths or the locations in which they are standing/sitting. This is frightening, and even moreso for people who find themselves the subject, more often and less fairly, of police suspicion.
You write:
<
p>This, in my view, is the most important aspect of this episode. This is why I feel that this does, in fact, “justify outrage, hostility”.
<
p>The analysis by Mr. del Pozo is fine as far as it goes. What Mr. del Pozo omits is that the confrontation and arrest happened after Professor Gates identified himself. The omission is crucial, and cuts to the core of Mr. del Pozo’s analysis. At the moment that Officer Crowley knew that no burglary had been committed, he should have walked away. The most effective way for Officer Crowley to “maintain control of the environment” of the emergency call was to walk away when it should have been obvious that there was no emergency. It was, in fact, his decision to perpetuate the conflict that caused the situation to spin out of control. That decision — to not walk way — was, in my opinion, accurately characterized as by President Obama in his initial off-the-cuff comments. Whatever the politics, President Obama’s instinct is dead on.
<
p>The treatment of Professor Gates after Officer Crowley identified him and confirmed that identification was outrageous enough. The lock-step defense of this outrageous police behavior inflames an already hostile situation — specifically because of the context that you articulate so clearly in your closing paragraph.
<
p>Police behavior like this is frightening. It is appropriate for all of us to be frightened, outraged, and hostile towards it. The defense of this behavior by segments of the public worsens the situation.
<
p>I look forward to seeing analysis of the history of CPD “disorderly conduct” arrests. I am eager to learn how such arrests break down along class and racial lines. Such analysis is especially needed in the frightening larger “context of creeping authoritarianism in the U.S. in the last decade” that you so compellingly note in your conclusion.
There is reason for outrage at violent responses to nonviolent acts.
<
p>I think Crowley’s defenders in this situation are having a hard time imagining how an officer wraps up a response call in the face of verbal abuse. It just doesn’t seem like good procedure to scurry away from a scene that is on some level volatile. Imagine a domestic violence call where the victim is too scared to articulate her fears, and the male homeowner screams at the police to get off his property.
Can you please expand on that?
for nonviolent sit-in style protestors, and people who calmly refuse to comply with police orders.
There was no silent resident that Crowley could have been protecting by staying. And in the absence of any crime in progress, there was no reason for Crowley to be in Gates’ home.
not the public. It would have been logical to conclude that if the officer left the verbal tirade would end.
<
p>Remember Butch Cassiday and the Sundance Kid? “Ask us to stay and we’ll leave.”
Since when has it become “legally and socially acceptable for police to torture and sometimes kill…”? Are you talking about the United States? I certainly missed that memo. Not that police never over-react, but there are investigations and consequences. I would strongly dispute that such is legally or socially acceptable.
Two innocents killed by Boston police. Two investigations, two whitewashes.
<
p>Did you miss the story of the “detention” and torture of Jaoudat Abouazza?
<
p>From the latter link [Emphasis mine]:
<
p>Let’s do an instant replay of the “interrogation”:
Abouazza refused, but was wrestled into the chair by guards and had metal restrainers placed on his body. When he continued to resist, they forced open his mouth and gave him a tranquilizer. They extracted four of his teeth, one only partially so, leaving him bleeding and in tremendous pain. He was supplied with a few cotton swabs to stanch the bleeding and when these ran out, he used any fabric he could find.
<
p>I call that torture. You may, of course, disagree.
The name Victoria Snellgrove sounds vaguely familiar, but I can’t place her; never heard of the other two. Again, just because it happens doesn’t make it acceptable.
These weapons are frequently deployed now to get people to comply with orders, not to subdue violent resisters. Remember the “don’t tase me bro” guy? Or the kids who had pepper spray applied with eye-droppers during a sit-in?
I’ve read involving police and tasers, including vicious overreactions on the police officer’s part. I linked a video of an incident from UCLA’s library on the 150 comment+ thread. The same weapons used to KILL Victoria Snellgrove, who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, were used at UMASS Dartmouth when there were victory celebrations after the first Sox WS victory. They sent a member of the school newspaper to the freaking hospital, who was just covering the story. A few inches in another direction and those “rubber bullets” would have permanently blinded that college reporter.
<
p>Few are rising up to say no more, Christopher. These things are, at least, tacitly supported. Onlookers just look on while the police commit these heinous acts. There may be a time and a place for tasers and rubber bullets, but that time and place is a) not random crowd control and b) not people who aren’t being dangerously violent. Simply put, both of those things are absolutely lethal in some cases. People in other countries don’t stand for this shit; we shouldn’t either.
…the fact of something happening with acceptability. I would argue that the fact that Snellgrove became a story with calls for investigation (Thank you, BTW, for reminding me who she was.) is evidence that such behavior is NOT acceptable.
If something happens and people see it, but refuse to do anything about it, then, as I said, “it’s… tacitly supported.”
<
p>There are things we may not like but tacitly support all the time. We may even, occasionally, complain or write angry letters. Heck, there could even be occasional committees set up, filing reports and everything. But we don’t stop it. We don’t rise up and demand it changes. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it….
Point taken on tacit support. If you define it THAT broadly then I guess I’m guilty too. If letters and investigations don’t satisfy you then I all of a sudden realize why you don’t see me as a faithful ally on LGBT equality (even though I have both written to my legislators and letters to the editor on that issue). That’s just going to have to be the way it is I guess. Don’t expect me to sign up for your revolution anytime soon!
The angry letters are needed, of course, but when Boston Police killed two people, two years in a row… the streets of Boston should have been shut down. That’s how angry the city should have been. College students should have been out of their streets and blocking the freaking Pike. They should have been such a huge nuisance that Mayah Menino ensured action — that never again would college students be targets of open fire in Boston. For a city that depends on college students from around the country coming to learn and live in that city, Boston has an amazing tendency to tell them to fuck off in almost all of its policies and practices. Killing two of them in two years was just one of the more blatant ways of showing how much they cared…
I won’t be trying to shut down cities anytime soon. I guess I just don’t have an angry personality. I’m also not keen on holding everyone else in the city hostage in ways such as blocking the Pike against people who need to get where they’re going. In a democratic system we have built-in ways to express our discontent; I’ll take any emotions I feel out at the ballot box.
I join Ryan at being disgusted at the complacency that greeted the whitewashes of not one but two killings of innocents by Boston Police thugs.
<
p>Several generations before you have learned that the ballot box is often the last, rather than the first, step towards accomplishing change. It was necessary for a lot of blood to be spilled by a lot of poor working-class people in the early twentieth century in order to bring about the labor laws we take so much for granted. It was necessary for a lot of blood to be spilled by a lot black people in the middle and latter twentieth century in order to bring about the civil rights laws that we take so much for granted. The civil disobedience of the sixties was necessary in order to end a racist and classist draft and an immoral war. The moral corruption that brought down Richard Nixon was exposed by and drove the civil disobedience of the era after the 1968 election.
<
p>I encourage you to refresh your knowledge of the history of the secret and illegal conduct of the Nixon administration during the Vietnam war. It was civil disobedience, not the ballot box, that exposed Nixon’s illegal invasions of Cambodia and Laos.
<
p>Politics is a lagging, not a leading, indicator.
<
p>In order to bring about change in any government, including the “democratic system” that we now claim to have, advocates have to change the culture in order to accomplish anything at the ballot box. Yes, each ballot is important — and, at the same time, it is social change (driven by tactics that include civil disobedience) that puts items on and takes items off each ballot you receive.
<
p>We aren’t talking about ancient history here. The police department of my city killed two innocents in as many years. That is an outrage. An American President and Vice President ordered formal policies of torture. That is an outrage.
<
p>If it takes civil disobedience to raise these issues to the point where people do get angry about them, then so be it. To recycle an old slogan —
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
…I’m not familiar with either Kent State or the Nixon administration? If civil disobedience floats some people’s boat fine; in the case of MLK or Gandhi I’d probably even be quietly rooting for them. I personally find other ways to express myself and I think different people are inclined to take different approaches.
You seem to be implying more than just “it’s not my thing”.
<
p>In fact, you seem to heap contempt (through implying, for example, that Ryan has an “angry personality”) on those who do care enough to confront systemic failures — while happily enjoying the resulting benefits after they succeed.
<
p>You “quietly root for” leaders (did MLK and Gandhi have “angry personalities” too?) while carefully making sure that somebody else takes the risks — so that you can express scorn for their “angry personalities” while reaping the benefits of their sacrifices.
<
p>You might know the facts about Kent State and Nixon — it doesn’t sound as though you have much insight into the truth of those facts.
<
p>Well, at least I know where you’re coming from.
MLK and Gandhi do not strike me as angry people; Ryan has seemed to be angrier lately. I will absolutely defend one’s right to protest, but my sympathy starts to wane quickly when those protests start disrupting the lives of those of us not involved. A perfect example is a labor picket line. I believe unions have the right to organize, strike without consequence to their jobs in most cases, and create and walk picket lines. They should not expect, however, that others who may have a legitimate reason to get from one side to the other will rearrange their lives and not cross the picket line. I’m afraid if there’s any contempt here it is coming from you. I prefer the more subtle background work, which is also necessary. I’m reminded of the Pauline epistle where he talks about one body with many parts. His point is that each person has a job to and should not look down on himself or others for only playing a certain role. I admit I don’t know what you mean by contrasting the truth vs. the facts of Kent and Nixon. I know what happened and I know why it’s wrong. What else is there?
…was a tragedy. During a “celebration”/riot after the Sox win in 2004, a pellet of tear gas fired by a police officer lodged in her eye and killed her.
<
p>BrooklineTom, I would appreciate your clarification of your inclusion in your statements. You seem to be saying that the BPD sought to injure or kill her, and then whitewashed the incident.
The shooter who killed Ms. Snelgrove was firing at someone fifty feet away, in a crowd. Other officers fired other rounds that struck at least two other celebrants in the face and caused multiple body injuries to a third. The manufacturer of the weapon (an FN303) specifically cautions against firing the weapon at the face or head — yet at least three victims received face wounds, killing Ms. Snelgrove.
<
p>Even the official report noted:
<
p>From that report:
<
p>The consequences? According to published sources (here and here), no criminal charges were filed at all. Two suspensions, one demotion. Deputy Superintendent O’Toole did not face punishment because he retired before the report was issued.
<
p>The BPD investigated — and then essentially ignored the resulting report. I include the Snelgrove incident because the BPD clearly handled the situation incompetently and negligently.
<
p>Two suspensions, one demotion, one retirement, and one $5.1M settlement with Ms. Snelgrove’s family.
<
p>I call that a “whitewash”.
I guess that bostonshepherd can’t be bothered to actually address the substance of what he finds “worthless”.
You’ve done it yourself. Perhaps he’s just paying you back.
Perhaps neither you nor he want such cases discussed.
I only commented because you’ve done it to me- given me a “3” without addressing the substance of what was worthless. So Pot, Meet Kettle.
<
p>And since you’ve raised the issue with your usual histronics…I will state that no one, and I mean no one, finds torture to be socially acceptable. There’s just no shades of grey with you – it’s all or nothing and that’s just not real life. These are real examples of police excess…but here you go again, tying to the incident in Cambridge. I will restate again: This is NOT that police officer. Try looking at the individuals involved instead of indicting local, state and national police officers, who in the course of the last ten years,have had thousands of interactions where the right decisions were made, people were saved, and the criminals locked up.
There is a difference between the actions of individuals and the groups they belong to. You continue demand that we focus on “individuals” — including “that police officer” (presumably meaning officer Crowley).
<
p>There is compelling evidence that local and state police departments are growing increasingly authoritarian. I’d like to remind you that America doesn’t have any “national” police (yet). So there aren’t any “national police officers” to indict.
<
p>If an airline adopted corporate policies that minimized safety practices, and several of its aircraft crashed as a result, would you accept a defense that thousands of passengers arrived safely at their destinations over the past ten years? I hope not. Do you see that those who demand that those safety practices be investigated are not necessarily “indicting” the pilots involved?
<
p>We have strong and compelling evidence that our local and state police departments are becoming far too authoritarian. Too many innocents are being arrested, beaten, and in too many cases, tortured.
<
p>If it’s my child, my loved one, or myself who is wrongly arrested, then I don’t care how many “right” decisions the arresting officers may or may not have made — I care that this decision was wrong. If a pattern of wrongful arrests emerges — and you can be sure that professors Gates and Ogletree will be pursuing that — then the behavior of individual officers don’t matter. What matters is, instead, what systemic factors are leading a department of excellent police officers to make consistently wrong decisions.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, the Cambridge Police Department certainly was implicated in the case of Jaoudat Abouazza that I cited above, there aren’t any other “city police” in Harvard Square. Mr. Abouazza was tortured (though not by Cambridge police). I’m unaware of any effort on the part of CPD to investigate, criticize, or reject the treatment Mr. Abouazza received after being handed over by them to other authorities. Perhaps you don’t find that objectionable — I do.
are a federal law enforcement agency. Also, one could say ATF agents are a type of national police.
Really….you will need to produce the “compelling evidence” for this statement:
<
p>
<
p>And while you’re at it, why not explain how the Cambridge Police Dept was “implicated” in the Abouazza case? They stopped him for a traffic violation (lapsed registration.)When they ran his papers, they likely found out the Feds had him on a list and they stepped in. It was mere months after 9/11, when this country was still reeling from the aftermath of the violence perpetuated in New York, DC and a field in Pennsylvania. I do not defend what happened to this man, but please don’t extend what happened in federal custody to the Cambridge Police.
<
p>This is the problem that I have with some of the things you write. You make broad and sweeping statements and are really messy with the facts. You don’t provide context for understanding – you just make “statements.” It makes it hard to accept your theories on the face of them when it’s clear that you’re only telling half the story and omitting the other half.
<
p>And yeah – we do have national police. U.S. Marshalls (thanks Joe TS), the FBI, TSA, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, National Park Service…shall I keep going?
Unfortunately, so many of you are bitter hostile and biased that you cannot objectively comment on this (or many other) situations. Plus, you speak of the “creeping authoritarianism in the U.S.”… Can you imagine Gates (or anyone) speaking out and screaming in a cops face 20,30 or 40 years ago. You would have been beaten to a pulp and locked up. I believe the complete opposite has occurred and many people today get away with all sorts of things relative to the past. The “Creeping” has been away from authoritarianism in the U.S.
<
p>This site has been flat for awhile and it’s funny how “race” issues seems to bring people’s emotions and attention back. There is really is lots to talk about but as usual the dialogue gets suppressed by any open talk which is interpreted in any way “against” the black view as being racists. We often hear about not understanding what it is like to be black thus eliminating our ability to empathize with black while blacks appear to have the super human power to understand what is like to be white.
<
p>This Gates issue was not about race. If there was any debate I could understand one about police authority and/or abuse of authority but race had nothing to do with accept Gates made it that way. His outright and immediate defamation of Sgt Crowley, whom he knew NOTHING about was outrageous. Of course nobody on BMG accepts the idea of exchanging players in an argument as valid (as in Sotomayer could make her remarks about Latino women with no problem from the left but a white man would be castigated for saying such a comment about himself). What would BMGers say about a white celebrity using the same words (replacing white with black) Gates used and acting the same belligerent way?
<
p>Race needs to be talked about more often and at a deeper level. BMG should try to get people to dialogue instead of attacking every remark which could be interpreted as “racist”. I think Gates was so wrong in this case and I would feel exactly the same way if he was white.
in the Gates-Crowley incident, that while Ofcr. Crowley may not have behaved properly, Gates kind of acted like an idiot. Yet, one has to recognize something else: The root cause of this whole brouhaha can be traced directly to that white woman who made a call to the police, bringing them on the scene, and making things a whole lot worse. Frankly, I think that she is a bigger jerk than Ofcr. Crowley and Prof. Gates put together.
she saw a couple of people trying to jimmy a neighbor’s door so she called 911. You can comment on the kind of nbrhd where ppl don’t know each other, but she did the right thing.
<
p>FYI she didn’t mention race.
not saying the men were black in the 911 call doesn’t imply that she didn’t observe that the men were black or that the caller was motivated by racism.
<
p>It doesn’t imply that she did… either.
Apparently Ms Whalen has had to hire an attorney who was on CNN this morning reporting her client is not white, She was aware of the recent break-ins, and saw 2 men with 2 bags forcing their way into the home. When the 911 operator pressed her for a description, Ms Whalen stated that she could not say as she only saw them from the back, when pressed further she stated she wasn’t sure, but 1 may be hispanic.
<
p>Should Ms Whalen get invited to the White House for a beer with the President?
The question now becomes where did the language in the police report come from? Did Crowley just make it up?
and hence national news, I’ve not seen the following explored:
<
p>Does a drivers license make it clear that an adult male lives in the house? What if, for example, a man and his wife get divorced. Perhaps he was abusive to her or the children. She gets the house, he gets a restraining order.
<
p>3 months later, he decides to break in. Cop shows up. He shows his 2-yr-old drivers license to cop. Cop leaves. Man goes back to badness (robbery, physical abuse, etc).
<
p>
<
p>Now, I have no idea if this is at all a reasonable concern. Maybe when you lose the house in a divorce (or get a restraining order or whatever!) you get a new drivers license with a different address. Maybe the cop runs the name/addy through the system before he allows the man out of his sight to confirm there’s no reason to be concerned. Maybe maybe maybe. Lots of maybes in a field I know nothing about.
<
p>So… are my maybes justified? What is standard procedure? Thoughts?
At the time that this situation spiraled out of control, the investigating officers had already called in and confirmed that this was the residence of Professor Gates and that no burglary was in progress. Officer Crowley had already talked to the Harvard University police. The only “badness”, in this situation, was the hostility (justified or not) that Professor Gates was expressing towards Officer Crowley — the officers, at this time, knew that no robbery, physical abuse, etc., had or was taking place.
<
p>Our own Ernie spells this out rather clearly in his pointedly satirical “The Cross Examination of Sgt. James Crowley.”
Perhaps Wall Street news can be national news, but not that many people give a crap what happens to Mayah Ten Terms.
<
p>
<
p>Sounds like a lot of rationalizing to me. First, it shouldn’t be that hard to figure out if someone has a restraining order. Isn’t that on record at a police office? So let’s throw that “what if” right out the window.
<
p>More What Ifs… What the heck is a guy to do to prove he lives in his own home? Call an attorney and provide a deed? What if that deed was an old deed? What if we just send him to the streets for a few weeks while we let incompetent cops figure it out?
<
p>At some point, someone has to claim responsibility. Gates gave his ID, showing he lived there. The cops confirmed with Havahd that Gates lived there. What if the cops just decided to end it there, instead of arresting a guy for being angry at asshole cops refusing to leave his own home, after he had proved he lived there?
and tools to control a situation so they can protect the public investigate a scene and do their job without interference. This needs to be balanced with some basic rights of the public they are there to protect.
<
p>While it does not appear that race was the trigger in this incident, instead of debating whether Officer Crowley had the right to arrest Professor Gates, maybe the question should be, did he have to? Could he have walked away?
<
p>Reacting with behavior that would be criminal for a non-officer citizen should be illegal for a police officer in most instances.
<
p>Youtube has an incident from last week of a handcuffed defendant in a courtroom, who stands up, throws over the table and stands there yelling till he is tased.
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>What happened to removing belligerent defendants from the courtroom in a conscious state?
<
p>Here’s an older youtube of a man complying with police, who followed instructions and lay on the ground only to be tased. When his mother gets out of the car to see if her son is okay, she gets pepper sprayed.
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>Best so far, a 16 year old falls off a bridge and breaks his back. Police arrive and tase him 19 times as he lies on the ground because he was talking incoherently and making threats.
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>Then there are the grandmothers, kindergartners and pregnant women. Yea people are outraged.
<
p>We can recognize that most police officers are working hard in stressful jobs to serve the community and still call for some stronger guidelines on police use of force.
both police and “victims” are white OR if the police are black and the victim is black OR the police is black and the victim is white then all is okay, BUT in all these episodes on youtube… if the cop is white and the victim is black then they are obviously racially motivated. That’s the way it works!!!