As for probable cause to enter the home, Crowley had plenty. Named, credible witness on-scene who saw someone forcing the door, damage to same door, uncooperative person inside who answers the suspect's description. That's a ground ball. No court would find a problem with Crowley entering, in fact it would have a chilling effect on public safety and law enforcement if the court ruled Crowley should have done anything else.

But probable cause isn't the only legal precedent that Crowley had at his disposal. "Exigent circumstances," in which the courts have consistently ruled that an officer needn't take the time to pursue a warrant if a life could be in danger or the destruction of evidence could be happening, allows the officer to break down the door, if necessary. Again, the sergeant had a credible report of two black men breaking in. He only could see one, and that one was uncooperative. If I were his Supervisor and Gates wouldn't answer the door or identify himself, it would be "Start the fire department" to break down the door. We're going in. I've done it many times and no court has or would have a problem with it. **Usually the uncooperative party has a change of heart when he sees the FD with axes and halogen tools running toward the door!

Because police officers are well-trained that they cannot enter a home without probable cause? Unlike "cultural sensitivity", which I seriously question can EVER be taught, much less to a division of society so ingrained with a superiority complex like police…the rule that you don't ever go into someone's house without a good reason is pretty cut-n-dried. It's a major Constitutional issue.

More than one court case has been won by a sharp defense attorney who picked apart a weak "probably cause" claim by overzealous police who enter a house or car on thin justification.

But if you manage to get someone OUT of their house under their own volition…they're suddenly fair game for a variety of tactics.

However, I don't think Crowley's thought process was as calculating as that. It think it was more just instinct that "you don't go into the house unless you've got a damn good reason". With that in place, it rather strongly appears that Crowley instinctively reacted to Gates' belligerence with an "I'll show you" pissing contest and one tactic that instinctive comes to mind is to goad Gates to come out the house (where he's more vulnerable philosophically) and come closer to Crowley (where he's more vulnerable physically).

If I'm not clear, and I apologize for it because I know I'm not being as clear as I could be, then imagine this partial analogy: you never fight an enemy on his home turf if you can avoid it. That instinct is partly what led Crowley to demand Gates come out of his house.

———-

By the way, does the police report mention how much time passed between when the woman phoned in the report and when the police arrived on-scene? Anecdotally you hear a lot of stories about calling the cops and waiting hours for them to arrive; it's a common compliant in Roxbury and Dorchester, although I have no factual evidence to confirm or deny it. I wonder how the response time of the Cambridge Police compares in this case vs. other "home invasion" calls under similar circumstances. If there's a notable difference, it would probably speak to the officer's frame of mind.

And for what it's worth, I still think the bottom line here is that this story would never have happened if Gates were white. A lot of people in oh-so-progressive Cambridge don't like to think that they're racist so they just assume that they're not. So they become racist-by-ignorance and are shocked, yes shocked!, when the ugly truth is revealed.

Please, could you say it in English?

And what you wrote about Professor Gates most likely is true, also. Further, the politicians should not have intervened simply because of race accusations, the professors stature, friendships, etc. The only thing that should count are the merits.

In this particular incidence, all of the reports indicate that Officer Crowley was angered at the response he received from Professor Gates. It is possible the attitude was initiated by the officer. Regardless, the professor should have been courteous. If it had been me I would not have been arrested. I would have been angered perhaps, but I would have attempted to bring the occasion to civility and thanked the officer for checking my home so quickly and efficiently. Professor Gates clearly was wrong, and perhaps continues to be. I'd be embarrassed.

Officer Crowley should have politely written down his name and badge number on a piece of paper in the professor's kitchen, and left. If at that time Professor Gates was subsequently found to be following up with a disturbance in the street after police had left that would have been grounds to make an arrest after a warning to return to home.

Both could have avoided the arrest, and both should have. But, it was the officer, not the professor, who did make the arrest and abuse the authority because he was angry and proceeded for punitive reasons.

On the other hand, if anyone were to read some of Professor Gates essays they may very well surmise that the man clearly blames the white race for all the ills of the poor black man. So I ask you, which of these two are more likely to be racist?

The fact that the governor of Massachusetts squashed the charges because he is a friend of Professor "Skip" Gates is outrageous. This should have gone to court, then perhaps the true story would have come out.

In fact I feel the comments made by the governor of Massachusetts, the major of Cambridge, and our President [all Black] were inappropriate to say the least. As society leaders, they should have been more biased. I feel they all owe Sergeant Crowley a public apology. Especially our President, he should apologize to Crowley, the Cambridge Police department, and all law enforcement for his lack of respect. It seems our President’s true colors may be coming out, rather than uniting us as promised he may have set racial discrimination back about 100 years. Personally if I were an educated African American, I would be ashamed and embarrassed by the leadership representing my race and their behavior.

And finally, our president, who has also stated to be a friend of "Skip Gates", claims the professor is not one for public confrontation. Yet, the professor is the one speaking out to the media. I think Professor Gates acted vulgar and irrationally and it appears to me that in order for him to save face he is now embellishing the truth. I have far more respect for the person who shows humility and maturity. I'm leaning towards the record and integrity of Sergeant Crowley.

Nothing in what you asked me necessitated that the "KKK-like organization that looks to eliminate whites instead of blacks" needed to be composed of African Americans aka blacks. In any case I guess your sarcasm detector is broken. I would have thought that the question mark would be a clue. . .

Incredible.

Instead, due to the policeman's perhaps rightful anger, he abused his authority by applying punitive measures towards the professor.

Disorderly conduct must have a victim. Repeatedly asking for the police officer's name so that he can make a complaint against a specific person, and thus being angered because a response is not being presented in a tone and manner that is clear to hear and understand, hardly infringes on the police officer's right to be undisturbed.

This situation is close if not crossing the line of violating several Constitutional protections including the Fourteenth Amendment.

Police are deliberately provided with strong powers, but abuse of those powers, even on occasion, is horrible and if overlooked, a horrible threat to the inner core and fiber of this country.

Clearly, there was no fundamental, objective reason for the arrest. The conduct did not infringe on anyone's rights, nor were there any victims.

There was no public annoyance or cause for alarm. Officer Crowley was annoyed.

Even if Professor Gates was rude, of which is most likely the case, he became the victim of abuse by a false arrest as a result of the police officer's punitive action due to his anger and dominance.