As I’m preparing for our Radio Boston broadcast on the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, I note that the Google news page has 3,429 news articles posted on this story.
How this most distinguished history professor came to be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct — is bizarre. How his familiar face, known to millions for many PBS documentaries, is now fixed in a Cambridge Police Department mug shot — is crazy.
As I read and hear accounts of what happened, I keep trying to imagine myself in Dr. Gates’ position. I’m inside my own home, in a shouting match with a police officer, who has a badge and a gun. I show him my identification that proves… I am who I say I am.
Would I expect an officer to believe me, dial down the threat level and leave me in my home, both of us realizing a misunderstanding?
You bet I would.
And then I ask myself – would a white woman ever be in this predicament? And I have to say, I can’t imagine it.
I can’t imagine what it would feel like or what I would do under those circumstances because I cannot walk in those shoes. I do know that people with badges and guns have hard and often dangerous jobs. I also have seen the statistics on racial profiling in America and know that it is never too far removed from black men in this country.
Even, apparently — distinguished and famous Harvard professors.
This is a tough story, emotions and opinions are running high. It is worthy of a frank and open discussion — we look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks for listening, Jane.
So far, no one from the police department has explained exactly why Prof Gates was arrested. We can only conjecture that perhaps Mr Gates became disorderly, insulting, or gave the officer some other good reason to arrest him. Until a substantial explanation is forthcoming from the Cambridge police department, it leaves us all with “racial profiling” as the answer, doesn’t it?
From the reports I am seeing and hearing, Mr. Gates followed the officer out of the house and continued shouting. after the officer believed it was Mr. Gates’ house and left the house. It seems that if Mr. Gates had stayed inside his house when Sgt Crowley left, the incident would have been over with no arrest and that the officer interpreted Mr. Gates’ pursuit as confrontational, resulting in the arrest. It will be interesting to hear the tapes that the Cambridge Police Department has of Sgt Crowley’s radio. If he is calm and orderly with Mr. Gates clearly shouting in the background or if he is shouting and Mr. Gates is unheard. Hopefully, those tapes will be made public. As an aside, it is embarrassing for a President, a biased friend of Mr. Gates, to weigh in without having, in his own words, all the facts, to demean the Cambridge police specifically and police in general without allowing for any possibility of some culpability on Mr. Gates’ part.
The reports suggest, although obliquely, that Mr. Gates, with all his erudition, was making obscene comments about Mr. Crosby’s mother. If this is the case, then he was being both provocative, and belligerent. If he had kept his mouth shut, this wouldnt have happened. But how much abuse is too much abuse aimed at a White “boy” who is also a police officer. How much does one have to take, regardless of the aggressor’s color. Mr. Gates wants to make this a racial issue. I disagree. He dumped all the years of rage, damned up, and spilling out when the flood gates were opened, by not getting the professorial respect he expected. He no longer cloaked it in high academicese, but let the emotional truth, the suppressed anger spill out. Yes, Mr. Obama, who I voted for, seems to have a collection of very angry “friends” and I must add relatives who are filled with very thinly disguised anger, but are so into being accepted by the white status quo that they spend their lives hiding it so as not to blow their cover and their driven need for “success.” Even Mrs. Obama, who holds her mouth so tight with controlled smiles, might utter racial barbs if she didn’t control, her tightened lips. I voted for Obama, not his angry wife, who is both arrogant, bogoted and biased towards her own race. Every time Mayor Koch of NYC didn’t like something that was said or done, he screamed, “antisemitic.” this is the same story all over again. The media has to make a distinction between racism, and a normal human response to verbal abuse, which was the case with Crosby. No you cant abuse people physically or verbally just because you are black and have 200 years of angry baggage on board.
While visiting my parents home in Wellesley,Mass. I inadvertently set off the security system. The Wellesley police came to the house and asked me – a white, middle-aged woman – for identification. After seeing my id, they asked if I was alone and then asked to enter the home to check each room. I understand that this is police procedure.
I am sure that if I had been belligerent with remarks like “Do you know who you are messin’ with?”, the encounter could have escalated into something unpleasant. Shouting at the police when they are trying to do their job is counterproductive.
I suspect that Professor Gates isn’t used to being questioned by ordinary folk and that he has a sense of entitlement given his educational level and elevated place in our society. I hope that the good professor doesn’t exploit this incident and make it more than it was: a case of overreaction, perhaps on the part of both men involved.
I lived in Cambridge for many years – I considered it a very liberal, enlightened, evolved city. However,several years ago, a friend, who happened to be black, was moving into an apartment, helped by several of his brothers. Although moving furniture INTO the dwelling, police were notified by a caller saying ” black people were moving furniture”. Even though police came to the apartment, fortunately nothing more ensued than a check of the situation.
While this incident occurred many years ago, it still makes an interesting statement about a city thought to be so liberal.
As an outside observer to the Prof. Gates incident and without knowing all the facts, it still seems to me that this is less about race and more about a power struggle. I think both people have perspectives, which can be well understood, that can explain why they might have reacted the way they did.
I think they owe each other an apology. I think a meeting and discussion between them is the most powerful example and resolution that could be offered.
Wow…talk about angry baggage Barbara. Who is hateful and seething with rage here? You are. You are imagining things that may not be true. There is no law against shouting at a police officer, especially when the officer is trespassing inside one’s house without a search warrant. The officer must be fairly dim to imagine that Dr. Gates was a thief. Utterly preposterous. And using a phrase “your mama” is not obscene. The officer displayed boorish and ignorant behavior and should have instantly realized his mistake when he saw the Harvard ID, then apologized and left.
I am terribly troubled by this whole incident. It’s clearly emblematic of the racial *and class* divide that still exists in this country. If Professor Gates weren’t wealthy, connected, influential, there would have been no story; it would have been just another presumably angry black man bullied by a presumably belligerent and possibly bigoted police officer. If Professor Gates had held his temper *or* if Sgt. Crowley hadn’t let his own testosterone drive his behavior (sorry, but my own historically colored viewpoint sees this as a zero sum guy thing), this never would have happened.
I’m reminded of a comment Whoopi Goldberg made on The View in response to a compliment from a viewer who remarked on how articulate she is. In response, Ms. Goldberg herself added the phrase, “for a black person,” believing it to have been a racist comment. That reaction made me immeasurably sad because I had had the same high opinion of Ms. Goldberg, utterly without qualification. She is exceptionally intelligent, perceptive and articulate, yet she can’t seem to escape the barbs of her past and take a compliment as a compliment.
As a white person, I need to look into myself for the hidden prejudices no one is immune from, and I take that responsibility seriously. But the spectre of racism isn’t going to go away until people of color *also* analyze their assumptions and let go of enough anger and resentment to allow progress to happen. Of course there is racism in our society, but it isn’t behind every remark and gesture. Sometimes — usually — selfish, inconsiderate behavior is only that: human rudeness that shouldn’t be taken personally or made larger than the simple pettiness it is. The world would be a better place if we’d all just give each other a break! Kumbaya.
Jane, you are so prejudiced that it borders with being non-professional. You are immediately taking sides, and refuse even to hear to the arguments of the other side. Is it reporting or expressing your own judgements?
Being a Harvard professor does not mean being always right. And the policemen in question is the most unlikely candidate to be called “racist”, if you make a search into his background. Actually, he was teaching racial relations in police academy to his younger colleagues.
This knee-jerk reflex is very upsetting.
It seems to me that the fuel for this turning into a race-inflamed issue was supplied by Prof. Gates, who perhaps understandably is highly sensitive to this issue. Gates is also probably ignorant of how a police officer would feel while investigating a possible breaking and entering situation without backup. The officer could not take it at face value that the first person he encounters is the owner, nor could he be sure that there might not be others in the house, perhaps unknown to the owner, who could be trouble. So getting identification, investigating the situation inside the house, etc., would be essential and standard police practice. Officer Crowley was apparently immediately confronted with Gates’ angry reactions to his request to conduct routine police procedure with insults that Crowley was cting in a racially motivated manner (per Gates description of events on his own blog). Given that Crowley had been in charge of police training for how to avoid racial profiling, that allegation could be very insulting and may have lead to Crowley’s ultimate reaction. Doubtless either side could have reduced the tension at some point, but I suspect Gates is more at fault, and is more the racist of the two, in that he is obviously predisposed to assume he is being harassed. Finally, I suspect that if a white man had reacted the same way to Crowley, he would have gotten LESS deference than Gates, not more. Try insulting a traffic cop next time you are pulled over and see how far your freedom of speech extends.
In the discussion of race relations in the United States an important perspective is being unheard – that of poor urban Caucasians. Seeking out this perspective would help inform us of the relationship between class and racism and the perception of racism. When I moved from inner city Boston after attending public schools, many people I met in the Amherst area would comment that that must have been “wonderfully diverse.” In honesty I generally replied that I don’t think I experienced true diversity until I moved to Amherst and spent time with middle class/suburban/rural people. My poor White, Black, Latino, Asian friends in Boston all seemed to have a shared baseline city experience, with the similarities often being much greater that the differences.
Also on a related note: I’ve been pulled over for “driving while white” in a black Boston neighborhood. It didn’t really bother me as I’m sure from the cop’s perspective the white kid’s reasons for driving in a poor black neighborhood late at night might have been worth investigating.
Thanks,
Aris Focualt Etheridge
Sgt. Crowley teaches a course to law enforcement officials on racial profiling. He’s an experienced cop (about 15 years). Could he have been (more) professional by being above Prof. Gates’ “tumultous” and “confusing” behavior (as described in the police report) — and walked away?
Would it have been acceptable to police and the public for Crowley to have walked away?
Sgt. Crowley said on air (to a radio station) that the outcome was in Gates’ control. Not in his too?
I think many of these points about police protocol are very informative – perspectives that many of us do not know if we haven’t been in the situation. But, know one is talking about this on the local level. There was a shooting on Harvard campus less only a few months ago, and give how the Cambridge police responded to that incident vs. the other 6 shootings (that I personally am aware of in just the last 12 months) there is a significant amount of pressure on the Cambridge police to ensure the safety of the Harvard University area. And, how does class play a roll? Harvard professors are notoriously self-righteous and arrogant. Two people made a mistaken situation escalate out of hand, but to just throw around the word race is irresponsible. Anyone who actually lives in Cambridge knows there are two Cambridges.
The Cambridge police should be careful how they tread. So should all police forces. The record of policing in this country is not so good when dealing with African Americans.
They want the governor and the President to apologize? Do they really want to start this?
Crowley should have walked away. Gates’ should maybe learn that not everyone knows who he is.
Although there is clear evidence that the officer has a history of exemplary service in terms of race relations, he may well have been irritated by Professor Gates’ reaction, which is a reflection of many years of distrust. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any discussion about the fact that the man had just arrived from the airport, having completed a week long trip to China. Perhaps he wasn’t at the top of his game.
It seems to me that these were two men who, given their respective backgrounds, should have have had more common ground than not. Dr Gates is a respected African-American History scholar, and Sgt Crowley teaches a training class on profiling to other police officers. Perhaps both men should be required to lecture in each others’ class. In addition, they should co-host an open discussion on race in America. Perhaps this could work to make this a positive learning experience.
According to the police report Sgt Crowley did not arrest Professor Gates for yelling in his house nor on his front porch but after he continued to rant as the Sgt was returning to his car. The report said there were witnesses. Let us hear from them. I have dealt with self-important professors and otherswho think they are above the law. Saying “you don’t know who you are messing with” was not smart on Professor Gates’s part. Little old white ladies have found themselves in trouble with the law for acting snotty.
Sgt. Crowley was like a very patient umpire, but when the player, black or white, continues, the book get thrown.
I learned a long time ago that if you get mouthy with a cop, you will likely regret it. It took a while longer to learn that, while it may not be fair for a cop to use his authority in a way I deem arbitrary, I prefer to be able to go about my business as quickly as possible, so I call them sir and show as much respect as I can muster.
From Slate.com:
The arresting officer alleges that Gates shouted at him and threatened to speak to his “mama.” He then arrested Gates for disorderly conduct. What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?
Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says “idle and disorderly persons,” a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.
The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts’ awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates’ property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect’s own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.
This is a problem of egos, isn’t it? Nothing about the officer’s past suggests he is racist. He was answering a call for breaking and entering, perhaps playing it by the book. But as soon as he documented Prof. Gates’ identity, he should have understood why the Professor was indignant and why Gates was behaving as he did. At that point he should have walked away. Instead, perhaps because he was acting in front of police colleagues, he was overwhelmed by the need to exert his authority, and he made a bogus arrest for disorderly conduct. But Gates should have been smart enough to overcome his indignation, justifiable or otherwise, and to realize that the prudent course was to quietly present his identification. Instead, perhaps because he too had an audience, he continued to berate the policeman. It is particularly unfortunate that Pres Obama waded into this situation, and without knowing the facts criticized only the Cambridge police. The President’s comments will be used by his detractors to fan the flames of this incident. He would do well to start rolling back the controversy, by apologizing for his categorization of the Cambridge police, without stepping back from his concern for racial profiling, which is a fact, but may not be an element in this story.
We have three observations about the Harvard professor incident:
1. We find it interesting that the fact that this was the professor’s home was evidently not established early on way before the dispute escalated;
2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view.
3. Finally, considering that the reading and viewing public were not present at the scene (and thus have no first hand knowledge), and that there is no video tape to our knowledge of the sequence of events and what was said, how so many have formed conclusions, and made assumptions, about who did what and who was wrong.
There are some things which Professor Gates might have considered upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been.
One of your callers said that police think they’re above questioning, and that’s been exactly my experience. They have a lot of support in that from the general public, too. Why can’t we question the actions of police? If they want my respect, they’ll have to give me reason to respect them, and that requires more than just putting themselves in harm’s way.
More to the point, I think the police had no call to arrest Professor Gates, but I don’t see any evidence that race was a factor. Police have hassled me since I was 13, over 2 decades ago, and I’m a clean-cut white man. I haven’t been in exactly the same situation as Professor Gates, but I’ve been in similar situations. I’ve been pulled over because an officer didn’t like the way I looked at him (in his own words), questioned when I was just walking home from a restaurant, etc, etc…
As far as I can tell, this isn’t blacks versus whites, but police versus everyone else.
I’ve been robbed and beaten up, but I’ve lost far more over the years to speeding tickets. I don’t fear criminals on my daily commute, but rather speed traps. The police have never done more for me than file a report…
You know what, ranting about the police isn’t going to help anyone, but this situation really gets my hackles up. They should at least be patient when people question their motives or practices; we have good reasons to.
You know … I agree with the caller Micheal. I am also a NYC transplant (+15 years here) and have also noticed that the local Police are just bullies and that it is independent of race. That said, race is an added spice.
True, we haven’t had a Abner Louima incident up here. It is also true that I, as a black man, have felt safer up here than I have at home. Still, I have seen just how belligerent the local law enforcement can be and just how unprovoked that behavior often is.
I believe that many people who are comparing their experiences (such as tripping the alarm to their homes either in Brookline or Wellesley) are completely overlooking one important point which is this: Mr. Gates was interacting with police that were informed in a phone call that someone was breaking and entering to this household. They were not responding to an alarm, they were responding to an accusation to begin with, therefore arriving to the scene with a preconceived notion. This is completely different in intent and in construct. When thinking and acting about this very passionate and potentially flammable issue, I think that we must be as thoughtful and compassionate in our actions and words when addressing our very difficult and tumultuous history with racism.
The prominent Harvard professor is looking at a police officer and his immediate reaction is not “he is a force of the law”, on the contrary, his reaction is “this is a white guy who wants to bust me”. If you are a black person and when you see any white policemen and you think “he is a racist who is after me” this is racists.
The experienced police officer is looking at a black man and does not see an emotional intelligent man, but sees a black guy who does not want to do what he is told to do. This is racists.
Two men, each is an example for the youth, each is a part of a middle class backbone of the society. And yet, when caught in a moment, they had gotten lead by emotions deeply hidden on the back of their consciousness. In Cambridge, Massachusetts! What do you want from other people?
They both had not done anything illegal. But they both were wrong and behaved inappropriately.
Most interesting part of the Gates and Crowley drama is the “observer” report.
No I’m not-definitely claiming a “gotcha” case from a neighbor – but, yes, I’ll “allow” – not accuse – for any attitude from that to a real case of an observer – unfamiliar with Gates home – in “broad” daylight – walking, jogging, driving by and obligated to report a suspicion and preferring legal anonymity.
Would be interesting to know – but, you and I have no legal right to know – the “reporting motive” – except when the reporting is itself a crime.
No argument – this was a “break-in” – just not illegal.
Professor Gates – maybe abusively, legally, “stupidly” – racially, I don’t know for sure, but likely – verbally reacted to a legal and proper police action – that had to take a minimum security course once reported.
Just noticed the irony – he didn’t remind himself – with gratitude – that the police action was protective of Gates’ property.
I haven’t heard of a Gates criminal action or threat of physical violence or threat to commit a crime to warrant restraint and arrest.
Gates wasn’t smart – started the racial anger mode, maybe – a better approach would’ve been along the lines of – between us gentlemen let’s discuss this – understanding that the circumstances up to that point were unfortunate.
I didn’t hear of any illegal police conduct up to the time of the restraint of Gates.
May be some contention about some one refusing or insisting on presence in or out of the house – not clear. Maybe[!] some stern orders about the above and some refusal to comply – no crimes here – maybe anger generation from both parties.
Sgt. Crowley overly reacted to verbal abuse – possibly criminally – by false arrest. Without any indication of Gates having resisted arrest – there wasn’t any attempted arrest for a “burglary” crime after the “resident” ID – or for threatening “physical” harm to anyone.
“You’ll hear from my lawyer” or insults – or claiming with foul language racial mistreatment – to a public official is not a crime. It’s not nice and is “stupid.”
Verbal abuse of anyone – excluding illegal public slander – including me and you and any public official is not a crime. It’s our job to take it and do what’s legal and don’t complicate by responding illegally.
Now on to President Obama. I think that he inadvertently dropped his careful thinking first and then speaking on racial matters and got carried away with this police action.
Actually, Gates was “stupid” and Crowley was illegal – in my opinion.
I read that Crowley provided “instructing” on race relations in police work. In this case – I think – Crowley didn’t have a race issue – but, maybe, an internal anger issue from Gates tirades, insults – resulting in poor judgment and outwardly, calmly performed an illegal arrest.
Moral: Keep your cool. Ask. Check the “big picture” – that is if your camera hss “film” or disk-space. Stay in control. You’ll feel better tomorrow.
Gates communication lack in two instances initiated and further complicated this fiasco – and likely you or I will or have done the same.
When’s the last time that you called the police to “alert” that you have to break into your house. Mostly we don’t call. Hah – my step-mother-in-law called the police to help her break in once.
aagghh!!! this is days later and the guest is still lamenting that if Gates’ neighbors had known him they would have realized he lived there and wasn’t a burglar … THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!!
and what is wrong w/ jane clayson that she either doesn’t know this simple but important fact of the case OR won’t take the step of curtailing the guest’s lengthy comment about this non-fact (and the alleged unfriendliness
of the neighbors)?!
“THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!!”: Sorry, I hadn’t read all that’s out – however, I “allowed” – not “alleged” – for a range of unconfirmed possibilities.
I also said that I and the public are not entitled to full facts of a report to enforcement. Caller isn’t tested for truth or identity. My comment about a neighbor was concise and not “lengthy” – every word had purpose.
My statements were careful – and yet concise – yes, I try to cover all the bases – possibilities – that seems “lengthy,” sorry, just my style.
I suggest more careful words rather than hasty mis-reading and retorts “from the hip.”
Why didn’t you comment on Crowley’s arrest of Gates. What was the “cause?” You know about “sticks and stones – and words not-hurting a professional with specific duty and responsibility.” Crowley needs at least one word in his file. Now – he takes the training that he has been providing.
We all have the opportunity to take someone’s “stupid, thoughtless, insults” and respond in a careful legal manner. Two angers don’t justify an arrest.
Proper approach, post break-in: Calm explanation of appearance of entire situation, acting on behalf of owner and property safety – “oh, you’re the owner.” Let’s check ID and confirm that all’s ok. No sweat, someone saw this and was obligated to report, etc.
Do nothing to ridicule, accuse, etc. You and I have likely been on either end of this scene – traffic, etc. Cop could properly instruct that an alert to police before “break-in” is required or helpful.
Now Gates can react – calmly, understandingly, appreciatively – from point of being on the same side – or – stupidly, angrily, vindictively, insulting, accusingly – short of threatening physical harm. He’s out of control but legal and no crime – but sad. I as cop or authority or friend just take it – file it.
Now, however, falsely accuse Gates of a crime and illegally arrest and detain him – cuffs too – that is illegal – a crime[?].
What does – “aagghh!!! this is days later” – have to do with anything. Pardon me, if I’m a bit slow – facts don’t change – discussion continues even today. I don’t appreciate your anger and put down.
Want to talk about the motivation of the “possible crime report” more? I don’t say that the report should not have been made. Let’s talk.
Race — and Prof. Gates’ high-profile public stature — obviously gave this story legs.
But maybe race did NOT motivate what Officer Crowley did in arresting Prof. Gates — he might have treated a white man, or woman, the same way. And perhaps he was acting just as called for by the procedures of the Cambridge Police Department. In other words, this might be less a racial incident, at least as far as the police were concerned. But it wouldn’t be less wrong.
At Prof. Gates’ house, there was no evidence that a crime of any kind had been committed — much less that Prof. Gates himself had committed any offense. Far less was there any notion that there was any weapon, threat, “tumult,” or violence in the picture — at worst, only an unhappy and maybe noisy homeowner.
Should Prof. Gates have been grateful that the police showed up in response to a citizen alert that was seemingly designed to protect his home from a break-in? Of course. He would probably acknowledge that.
Should Prof. Gates have used a more “conversational” tone of voice, and avoided saying things that might be viewed as offensive? Probably so — being uncooperative (as was reported on the tape), or unpleasant, or disrespectful to a police officer amounts to “borrowing trouble,” and it can be downright dangerous to “amp things up” with anyone with a gun or authority.
But as unwise as they might be, none of those things is a crime — nor should they be. The fundamental problem is that SOMEBODY’S interpretation of the “disorderly conduct” offense allowed this arrest to happen. What is profoundly wrong is that anyone, white or black, famous or not, old or young, should be ARRESTED for being uncooperative, discourteous, or disrespectful to a police officer, especially at one’s own home — which is what happened.
Even he had violated some decibel level in a noise ordinance, nothing more invasive than a citation should have been brought into the picture — such as for fare-evasion on the MBTA, or for a burnt-out turn signal while driving. No civilized society should allow the indignity of arrest to take place as a result of the facts that have emerged. No interest of a civilized society was threatened by Prof. Gates — at most only the dignity of Officer Crowley —and that simply cannot support use of a criminal arrest.
The fundamental reason that racial profiling matters so much is that this country gives police officers far too much practical ability to “mess with people” — in other words, the practical power to abuse citizens, either to hurt or humiliate people who have done nothing wrong, or to do something that is not called for by some minor infraction. Racial profiling makes this worse, because the abuse of police power seems to happen more often to folks of some racial groups. But the fundamental problem is abuse of police power — and racial profiling is the “multiplier.”
Many police officers do not stoop to this, but the news is full of reports that plenty of them do. The latter obviously give the former a bad name, and in fact, makes work much more dangerous for the honest officers.
There is no question that America is well served by lots of hardworking and courageous police officers, who serve not only with their skills, their time, and their dedication, but also with the risks they run.
But it doesn’t do those officers any good — and it doesn’t do society any good — to allow certain of their fellow officers to destroy trust with the public by abuse of their power. Archaic offenses such as disorderly conduct don’t really protect any interest of society. They are so vague as to be a magnet for abuse of police power, and for making vast parts of the population mistrust or hate police generally.
We already have laws that prohibit resisting arrest, or interfering with a police officer in the course of his or her duty. Anybody who threatens or “gets physical” with a police officer will have no trouble being convicted under these laws. Protecting police in the course of their duty is not helped by vague offenses like disorderly conduct.
In short, we should simply abolish the archaic offenses of “disorderly conduct” and “disturbing the peace,” and start over. In their place we should enact very clear prohibitions — noise level restrictions, for example — that do not give police officers the kind of discretion that leads to abuse of police power. And the new prohibitions should each have enforcement measures — such as civil citations — that do not allow a situation of hot-headed words to spiral into an injury, or an arrest, or an incident that stays in the headlines for weeks, like Gatesgate.
Using the heavy hand of the criminal law is often not the best way to get to a civil society — in other words, a society we can feel comfortable to live in. Imagine how different everything would have been if Officer Crowley had just handed Prof. Gates a citation for allegedly being too loud. Eventually, somebody would have decided who was right and who was wrong. No major incident — and everyone would have been better off.
Jean, please try to think. I know it’s hard for you, but try. The REALITY is that talking about someone’s mother shows some of the cantankerous and uncouth side that a lot of black people have. The statement is not a race thing (believe whatever you want) because we are all part of the human race. But when a person displays behavior such as this (whatever their skin tone) they are no longer acting as a good citizen but are epitomizing this barbaric mentality. Certain people cry racism when anything doesn’t go their way or to gain an unfair advantage (i.e., special treatment by those trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety no matter how unfounded). Plus many white people are so pathetic that they feel driven to defend and advocate for black people as if they are the white person’s personal project or pet. But saying “cracker” or “white boy” isn’t racist. People today are fools. What is it that makes some people spiteful towards black people (which is automatically labeled as racism)? When black people come to a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and are loud and disruptive; when they work somewhere and get an attitude with a customer (which wouldn’t be tolerated from anybody else); or when they try to cut down, cut in front of, beat up or intimidate other people. If a vast amount of people with blond hair acted uncivil like this then I guarantee you that others would feel spiteful towards blond haired people and many would not want to be around them UNLESS they could demonstrate the ability to respect their fellow human being, like most people do. This is obviously neither unreasonable nor racist; which also holds true whether you are red, yellow, white, black, or purple. It is the general attitude and behavior of any of the above groups of people that makes them undesirable, but ANYBODY has the right to demonstrate basic respect for other human beings and in doing so anybody has the right to be accepted. Unfortunately, a lot of black people are loud, disruptive, disrespectful and aggressive; more so than any other group. The officers acted appropriately in this case. The lesson here is this: Don’t get an attitude with the cops. No matter who you are you risk consequences if you do. Beyond that, anybody that would became enraged over the notion that a 911 caller used the words “two black males” to describe two people they thought were behaving suspiciously probably need to have their head examined. This type of sentiment is a form of control, that we must watch so carefully how we refer to certain people. It seems that the Constitution and the laws (freedom of speech, for example, assault with a weapon, attempted murder, or on a another subject illegally entering the country) really do not mean much and can all be ignored when people see fit.