The fact that Gates was arrested on a bogus charge is sufficient evidence that the cop was the one who lost his head, not Gates.
The only way you can keep on defending this action is by suggesting that Gates must have done something to deserve it. But you have nothing to support that allegation. Not even Crowley’s own report supports the arrest. “Yo mama” is not a crime. Asking about a racial motivation is not a crime either. Asking for a cop’s name and badge number is not a crime, either. Raising your voice is not a crime either.
You have no evidence that Gates was yelling, but even if he were yelling, that is not a crime. Looking at a snapshot and siding with the person who looks the calmest (WTF?..If I had a gun and the power to arrest someone at a whim, I’d be pretty calm too) doesn’t sound like an intelligent approach to take when assessing a situation. Seriously, the more you post in this thread, the more I have to wonder if we’re living on the same planet.
Believe it or not, cops are people. You’re acting like there is something special about them that prevents them from screwing up or acting like jerks. This is nothing but naivety.
Ivorybill you are completely off the reservation on this one. You’re professing that it’s a matter of difference of opinion, that would be OK if your rationale wasn’t in direct contrast to the facts.
You’ve left yourself no position but the belief that yelling at a cop is an arrestable offense. Either that or that a wrongful arrest is less “wrong” than losing ones temper. Both are utterly absurd.
You can hear sounds via a photograph? His mouth is open. That’s all you can tell, and that’s AFTER he was handcuffed. Talk about interpreting scant evidence how you want it to be interpreted!
In Crowley’s own police report, he stated that he was going outside to talk on his radio, NOT TO LEAVE. He invited Gates outside to continue the conversation. Therefore, based on the evidence provided by Crowley himself, he was neither in the process of leaving the scene, nor was he attempting to end the contretemps with Gates. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
I disagree. The demeanor of both individuals can be seen and interpreted in their facial expressions unless you have Asperger’s syndrome.
He was in the process of doing his job, which Gates made more difficult with his ranting. He would have been done and gone if the learned professor had used the common sense God gave a head of lettuce.
Please oh wise one, explain this to me. In what way was Crowley doing his job after he’d seen the mans ID and confirmed he was in his home? Everything after that is decidedly not part of him doing his job. He stayed for the extracurriculars.
And clearly you make a strong case that lacking common sense and ranting is a arrestable crime now. Excuse me if I take that with a grain of salt.
I hope this is a whoosh. Otherwise, it may well be the most inane post I’ve ever seen on this board. (And I’ve been here for a while!)
You know, it’s perfectly fine to opine that you think that’s evident from the photo. But why go a step (actually, several steps) further? Luckily the threshold for evidence is a little higher than you propose.
I give it to you, Magiver. Just when I think everything that needs to be said has been said, you drop another gem into the conversation.
You disagree? You CAN hear sound via a photograph? Is that your super power? Nice. Me? I see a man with his mouth open. Try it right now: form your mouth into an O shape. Is there sound coming out? If someone took a picture of you right now, could they tell from that photo that no sound was coming? I mean, really, you accuse me of having Asperger’s, when it’s really more likely that you have this amazing power to tell, from a still photo, not only what sound a person is making but also what the other person’s “demeanor” is like. Now, I could come up with a plausible scenario wherein Gates’ mouth is forming an O shape out of surprise and horror at being handcuffed… but I’m sure that’s 100% out of the question. Because your super power gives you greater insight. Or was that your bias? Not sure.
If I could arrest everyone who made my job more difficult on a daily basis, well, a lot of 12 year olds would be in jail, I guess. However, as HH pointed out, his job, ascertaining that there was no breaking and entering, was already completed when he arrested Gates. Hence, many of us believe the arrest was unnecessary. Including the Cambridge PD, who dropped the charges.
Yes, having the ability to recognize facial expressions does come in handy. People who suffer from asperger’s syndrome have problems communicating effectively.
I recognize Gates’ facial expression as one of horror and outrage. I would probably feel similar feelings and be making a similar face if I were being arrested in my own home for no good reason. What I can’t do, which you claim you can, is tell if he was yelling or not based on a photo. This doesn’t mean I have Asperger’s. It means that you either a) have a super power wherein you can hear sounds from a still photo, or b) you are making assumptions to suit your bias. Which is it?
If we were bad in school we were sent to the Principal’s office so if you’re a teacher you already have that power. If a student disrupts the class and calls you a racist I would expect you react accordingly.
Gates wasn’t arrested for breaking into his own house. He was arrested for being a public nuisance. The Cambridge PD did not disavow the arrest. The agreement with Gates presumes that he agreed to act civil in return for a drop in the charges. The arrest served its purpose to end his public disturbance. It did not serve the public to spend additional money in a court case. Gates would have been released on bond regardless of the charges so he had nothing to gain if he believes he was treated in a biased manner. His actions dictate that he didn’t deem it worth his time to pursue the matter further.
More’s the pity. Unless you’re claiming to be one of those one-off characters on Heroes, with the utterly useless super powers, in this case “Can hear sounds based on photographs”? Otherwise, your position that you can tell Gates is yelling from a photo is untenable.
Psst: Guys (or gals if you’re gals or y’all if you prefer), please see below. I’ve said all along that Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. There’s a statute and everything. He broke a law. He appears to have been warned twice that he was breaking a law and he appears to have chosen to not modify his behavior to prevent the arrest. So please spare me the repetitions that ‘yelling at a cop isn’t a crime’. It appears that by the time the arrest took place Professor Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley, at Cambridge Police, at Harvard Police and at public bystanders.
Did Professor Gates break a bullshit law? Sure. Could Sgt. Crowley have looked the other way? Most definitely. Did Sgt. Crowley ambush Professor Gates? Doesn’t look like it. Did Sgt. Crowley lose his temper? Witnesses have not said that he did. Did Sgt. Crowley abuse his discretion? I don’t think so.
“Almost every state has a disorderly conduct law that makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to “disturb the peace”, or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as “catch-all” crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger.” (emphasis mine)
“I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.”
It doesn’t say that ‘I’m leaving to go talk on my radio.’ It says ‘I’m leaving your residence.’
That’s utter bullshit. Read all my posts. I’ve been very consistent in stating that too many times police abuse their power. I just don’t think that Sgt. Crowley abused his in this particular case.
Yes it does. From the exact same police report, a few lines down:
It’s safe to say, then, that Crowley not only did not plan to leave, but planned on there being more responding units. Responding to WHAT? He had already ascertained that the breaking and entering did not happen, and that Skip Gates was the homeowner.
For all we know, Crowley did indeed plan to leave and the pertinent information to ECC and other possible responding units was “We’re done here.”
I’m amazed at the tenacity with which several posters on this thread hold on to their ONE AND ONLY interpretation of what was going on while ignoring or dismissing other reasonably possible scenarios. If it’s not what YOU would have done, or not how YOU would have thought, then it’s simply not possible that someone other than you might have thought or done differently, eh?
Yeah, but according to this, the units were automatically dispatched when Crowley did not respond to three calls from his colleagues and they quickly got worried about the lone officer responding to the call in a neighborhood where there’d already been lots of break-ins. I’ve also read somewhere that it’s SOP to send another officer to back up a lone officer anyway. Just FTR.
Look at what he said. He needed to talk on his radio outside, and invited Gates out there. Where is the assumption there? Why aren’t you taking Magiver to task for the patently ridiculous assumption that he could tell for sure that Gates was yelling based on a still photo?
Has nothing to do with me or what I would have done. I read the police report. Crowley explitictly states that he needs to go outside to talk on his radio. Why this has to be personal, about what I would do, or any assumptions, I don’t know.
This in no way contradicts the idea that Crowley was not going outside in order to leave, but to talk on his radio, nor the idea that he invited Gates to come outside as well, and not that Gates followed him against his wishes.
That Crowley did not plan to leave. Just because he specifically mentioned getting out of the house to use the radio doesn’t mean that’s the ONLY reason he stepped out of the house, and does at all preclude his being ready to leave the premises after making his radio report. If he’d said “I’m going outside to use the radio AND I’m going to stick around,” that would be one thing. But for all we know he said “I’m going outside to use the radio” and left unspoken “and then I’m leaving because the work is done here.” We have no way of knowing that he did not plan to leave.
I didn’t mean to make it personal, and probably didn’t word it very well. But perhaps this will illustrate the point I was attempting to make: You say here “Crowley explicitly states he needs to go outside to talk on his radio.” It appears to me that you see the lack of an explicitly stated “I’m leaving” as meaning “I do not plan to leave.” And I see that as a failure to acknowledge other possibilities. Such as: Crowley was done and ready to go, but didn’t know if Gates was done, and gave him an opportunity to raise further questions before saying “I’m done then, goodbye.” Had Gates not come outside, then Crowley would have said goodbye and left.
I guess I’m trying to say it seems to me that you’ve imposed some form of your thought process on Crowley, and are drawing conclusions about what he was thinking or planning. But you cannot know what Crowley would choose to list or choose not to list in his report (e.g. “I was ready to leave if Gates had no further questions.”), and cannot know what he was planning.
