Media should keep pushing on Crowley
Even many of us who think the Cambridge Police overreacted by arresting Henry Louis Gates in his own home have assumed — for the sake of argument if nothing else — that Sgt. James Crowley’s report was accurate.
I’ve contended from the beginning that Crowley’s mistake was in failing to recognize why Gates would think he’d been racially profiled. Friend of Media Nation Harvey Silverglate and Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens have both written that the issue wasn’t race, but Gates’ constitutional right to throw a nutty in his own home. I agree.
But with Crowley, Gates and President Obama settling in for an awkward beer later today, let’s not forget that there is an enormous discrepancy between Crowley’s report and the statements of Lucia Whalen, the woman who called 911 and then waited at the scene until police had arrived.
Using very specific, descriptive language, Crowley wrote that Whalen told him she’d seen “two black males with backpacks on the porch.” And when the Boston Herald pointed out the discrepancy to Crowley, he replied, “Obviously, I stand behind everything that’s in the police report. It wouldn’t be in there if it wasn’t true.”
Yet Whalen, at first through her lawyer, Wendy Murphy, and yesterday in her own appearance before the media (Boston Globe story here; Herald story here; Cambridge Chronicle story here), has insisted that she and Crowley never spoke.
The media need to keep pushing. If Crowley’s report turns out to be wrong in some fundamental way, then it calls everything else into question as well.
Creative Commons photo (cc) via Wikimedia.
Let Gate's sue the City. If he's right, he should get a settlement.
Dan – I agree with you completely. This is an issue that needs more investigation.
It is not an issue about money. If law enforcement oversteps Constitutional authority for punitive reasons, it is a violation to society in general.
If the police officer or the department were to accept any responsibility or admit to a careless mistake that would change the dynamics. We all make mistakes, it seems.
What has been reported about Professor Gates attitude should not cloud the bigger issue that there has been no evidence that the arrest meets all the necessary components to have protected our most valued Constitutional Rights – and that is why this needs to be pressed on.
What has been remarkable about Henry Louis-Gate* up to this point is that neither the two main protagonists, Gates and Crowley, have basically admitted that they over-acted or acted like an idiot. In any way. Only the Cambridge PD spokesperson said something to the effect of it not being either person's best day.
Crowley is faced with a factual error in his signed police report. I'm sure that kind of thing happens far more often than the police are willing to admit, but it's pretty clear it's the case here. If Crowley were to admit a little mistake — maybe someone else at the scene mentioned two black guys, and Crowley mixed up that person with Whalen — then he'd have an out. But by stubbornness Crowley is kicking the can down the street.
The case isn't going to trial, so there will be no defense attorney to argue that the police report shouldn't be believed because of at least one factual error.
But there is an investigation who will be expected to walk down the street and pick up that can. They are the ones that will probably point out his error in some report eight months from now; the question is whether they will dismiss it as a small mistake on a little detail, or dig into whether or not Crowley was the one who introduced race into the incident.
I'm not sure what else the media can investigate here. They've got pretty much all the material they're going to get, unless they can find a second passer-by or get a sworn statement from Gates that includes direct quotations. Both are looking far less likely. It's more a waiting question to see what the investigative panel says.
Drip, drip, drip.
* "Henry Louis-Gate" from John Stewart… much preferred to Gates-gate or L'Affair Gates.
So, does Cambridge PD keep stats on complainst agains officers? Chicago PD does, and it is closely guarded secret.
What's Crowely's past? Has he been disiplined? Why isn't Gate's suing? There are no community groups to push the Cambridge PD?
Or is it all make nice with a beer?
If Crowely acting unprofessionally, it's not something to be dismissed as a "teaching moment" over beers. That's a cover up, and I think the only question is who's covering what.
Dan – I think you're the only person in America pushing to keep this story alive. Is it because most people disagree with you and you want to be on the right side of the topic eventually? Even the Globe published a poll yesterday that found that significantly more people found Gates wrong over Crowley.
Peter: I'm on the right side of the topic now. Why wait for eventually?
peter, funny how the inevitable freeing of information that put crowley's actions into question are causing his supporters to declare a bush-like "mission accomplished" and wish to move on. judging by the flood of comments here and everywhere, this hit a raw nerve and despite your desire to declare victory and move on, it ain't happening. i don't remember seeing the globe poll you cited but knowing how polls work, they likely didn't have one. what they probably published was the results of an internet survey that has no regulators to account for variances, no random sampling and anyone can vote early and often and the margin of error is plus or minus 100 per4cent. i think the support is far more evenly divided than among your friends.
Much of white America is uncomfortable with blacks and other minorities. And much of white America doesn't think about trivialities like free speech.
Gates did nothing illegal, yet was arrested and humiliated. Isn't that what Bush eventually declared the War in Iraq was all about?
Suggesting that a valid story not be pursued because a "poll" says people don't want to hear it is not journalism – it's the socialism that right-wingers are so afraid of. For blacks reading that poll, they can immediately remember polls asking if "blacks should marry whites, attend white schools or be allowed civil rights," and thank God that decisions were made based on Polls.
The reason Crowley's report should be investigated is because police reports are sometimes the "key evidence" in making a charge stick in a trial. If we accept that Crowley can misrepresent a witness and add racial undertones when there are none, then we're accepting that same level of misrepresentation when we end up in a traffic, civil or criminal court. The police report is sometimes the ONLY REPORT OF RECORD, and if he "stands by his report" after Whalen's statements and the 911 call, then he should definitely be reprimanded and his motives deserve to be called into question as a "public servant."
We will never be able to determine legally whether Mr. Gates' committed a misdemeanor since the prosecutor has elected not to pursue the charges.
That only means that the prosecutor does not want to proceed, not that Mr. Gates did not commit the infraction.
The police acted constitutionally in making the arrest; their burden is significantly less than that of the DA. That the other police in attendance during the incident support Sgt. Crowley's claims is significant (and also largely ignored).
Appropriate? That can be debated.
Mr. Gates seems to be the only one that HAS NOT been pressed on his side of the story.
Wonder why?
Is it because the apologists have chosen to avoid the "racist" charge at the expense of seeking the truth?
Is it because it may reveal that "racism" is a two-edged sword?
(Waiting patiently for our pet left-wing-nut to hurl another insult.)
The police acted constitutionally in making the arrest; their burden is significantly less than that of the DA.
That's your decidedly biased take. It's wrong, of course. You know, that whole "free speech" thing the right wingnuts find so noxious.
We will never be able to determine legally whether Mr. Gates' committed a misdemeanor since the prosecutor has elected not to pursue the charges.
And that's where to push.
Cop pinches celebrity friend of the Prez on disorderly, and Cop's boss drops the charges.
How many arrests for disorderly in Cambridge? How many for Crowely? How many are dropped? How many the Cop no shows for the trial?
A lot of questions to be asked….
I'm am not concerned about right-wingers, liberals, white or black – - – and I don't want our cities and towns employing people who violate basic human rights – the rights that our country has fought for for centuries. These are valuable rights and should not be infringed upon.
Suing the city of Cambridge punishes the citizens who ultimately pay the tax to defend and pay damages. That is only a solution possibly for the Professor to consider.
Even if the polls vote that Professor Gates should have been more polite, that his basis for rudeness is insufficient, or that this story should end, that does not mean in the least that morally and ethically it should if he, and more importantly, any person is arrested solely for punitive reasons.
Simply put, it should not be tolerated for many reasons, not the least of which is in the honor of the many people who fought over the centuries for freedom.
Well NewsHound, get the feeling all involved want this story to go away? That making the story going away a higher priority than risk of letting a cop who violates basic human rights keep at it?
Or is it just Cheers and get past this one fast.
lkcape: The police acted constitutionally in making the arrest
This is precisely the nub of the case. You seem to want to prove it by assertion.
Can you justify it?
Bill, what's absolutely clear is the police violated Gates' rights to free speech. If anyone wants this to go away quickly, it's the town of Cambridge.
Police need only their assessment of probable cause.
The justification comes in the statutes (federal, state, or local) that apply to a given situation.
You can argue that a statute is misapplied, but you cannot argue that the justification does not exist.
Looked to me in those photos Gate's was freely and loudley speaking freely right out the door….
This should have gone to trial because of the celebrities involved.
It shouldn't be adjucated over brewskis in the White House because Gate's a friend of RHO.
How many other people in Cambridge get their disorderly charges dropped?
lkcape – So in your view there's no such thing as false arrest?
lkcape – So in your view there's no such thing as false arrest?
A false arrest is when you arrest the wrong guy. Like if Crowley had arrested another guy at the scene and not Gates. Crowley arrested who he intended to arrest.
The question before the court should be is Gates not guilty of the charges he was arrested.
I hate when people reference the Constitution when they know nothing about it. There's nothing in the US constitution or the Massachusetts constitution that give police offices the "right to make an arrest."
Cuffing someone in America is traditionally reserved for "serious crimes," otherwise you could be issued a "notice to appear," which could have been considered in Gates' case. No action should have been taken AT ALL, other than reassuring Gates that the break-in investigation is over, apologize for the inconvenience and move on to the next call. A cop who trains people in racial sensitivity, like Crowley, should have known how his over-reaction and his erroneous "two black males" report might have been interpreted by civil rights advocates.
The DA dropped the charges because they were excessive and frivolous and the police dept. would have been put through the ringer if Crowley's "burglary investigation arrest of the homeowner" and police report – discredited by the 911 caller – had been dissected.
I'm more motivated than ever to have this National Conversation About Race – not only because it's way (WAY) overdue, but also because hyperbole, knee-jerk reactions should not be a part of the dialogue, and all people (black or white) need to know he difference between hate crimes; hate speech;
police brutality; segregationism; racial profiling; discrimination and plain-ol' prejudice.
False Arrest: "n. physically detaining someone without the legal right to do so. Quite often this involves private security people or other owners or employees of retail establishments who hold someone without having seen a crime committed in their presence or pretend that they are police officers. While they may be entitled to make a "citizen's arrest" they had better be sure that they have a person who has committed a crime, and they must call law enforcement officers to take over at the first opportunity. Other common false arrest situations include an arrest by a police officer of the wrong person or without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and/or without a warrant. Only when the arresting party knowingly holds someone who has not committed a crime, is the false arrest itself a crime. However, probable false arrest can be the basis of a lawsuit for damages, including mental distress and embarrassment."
See: http://dictionary.law.com/
The key is statutory authorization and "probable cause" thereunder.
The DA dropped the charges because they were excessive and frivolous and the police dept. would have been put through the ringer if Crowley's "burglary investigation arrest of the homeowner" and police report – discredited by the 911 caller – had been dissected.
Ok, then the Cops should go through the ringer… put these three Cops, and Gates before the Jury.
Not a Beer Summit at the White House. That's not the place for a sober national converstion about race.
We need the facts and a trial that puts the Cops through the ringer the best way to have gotten at that.
So an officer can arrest you just because he feels like it, as long as he can make up a justification for his report?
And you think this is "constitutional"?
…without the legal right to do so…
Crowley certainly had that right. He's not the judge. He makes the arrest.
A Judge and Jury decides if Gates not guilty unless Justice short circuited by dropping the charges.
If Gates arrest was motivated by racism, he can sue Cambridge for violationg his civil rights.
Holder and DOJ can go after the cops for violating Gate's civil rights… the press ouught to ask Justice about that..
…but drowning the violation in suds only feeds the blogosphere.
cheers
"The media need to keep pushing. If Crowley's report turns out to be wrong in some fundamental way, then it calls everything else into question as well."
Dan,
Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s "report" has already been shown to have huge discrepancies between what he claims and what independent witnesses have said. He claims that he did not yell at all, that he was physically incapable of yelling yet not only the police but independent witnesses who have no reason to be biased against Gates have reported that he was shouting loudly. Heck there are even reports or at least suggestions that the scene he created by shouting loudly attracted the attention of witnesses. There is a huge discrepancy here. The media need to keep pushing Henry Louis Gates Jr. every bit as much as they need to keep pushing Sgt. James Crowley. And yes, I believe that they should keep pushing rather than providing either of them with soft-ball interviews. Where have the media asked either of them, or any of the witnesses, hard probing questions? I have seen little or no evidence of them doing so to date and it is more than two weeks since the arrest now. . .
So an officer can arrest you just because he feels like it, as long as he can make up a justification for his report?
The Officer has the right to arrest you for "stuff". The Officer doesn't have the right to "make up stuff".
If you give the Officer stuff by shooting your mouth off about "know who I am" blah, blah…then you're really stupid.
Send these guys to Court….let the Jury decide.
"Not a Beer Summit at the White House. That's not the place for a sober national converstion about race."
ROTFLMU*UO!
Pun intended Bill?
It's a good one even if unintentional. And you know how I love puns. :-)
Robin: The issue is whether a police officer abused his considerable authority. My working assumption is that Gates acted like a jerk. So what? It's immaterial.
"If you give the Officer stuff by shooting your mouth off about "know who I am" blah, blah…then you're really stupid."
And possibly even attempting to obstruct justice. . . It seems to me that the "You don't know who I am" gambit is an attempt to coerce the cop into backing off whatever he may be doing out of fear of negative consequences from powerful and influential people. Am I wrong? Forget any racism involved, I can see how the "You don't know who I am" thing could get *any* cop's back up and make him or her want to let the person attempting to coerce or intimidate them know that they are not above the law. . .
i hate repeating myself but it keeps getting lost in the argument by lk and the like. tell me where crowley's "constitutional right" to arrest someone trumps the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . ." where, where, where does it say "this clause is void if the cop is annoyed?" seems you're making the constitution up as you go, much like you charge those "left wing" jurists. your constitutional scholar bona fides have been revoked.
Like I side Meamoeba, if Officer Crowely violated Prof Gate's Civil Rights, and Cambridge dodges the crime by dropping the Charges, it is the job of Obama's Justice Department to prosecute the Cop under Federal Laws designed for exactly this kind of situation.
The President does not buy a round for the Cops instead.
:Robin: The issue is whether a police officer abused his considerable authority. My working assumption is that Gates acted like a jerk. So what? It's immaterial.
And what about Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s "considerable authority" Dan? Who do you suppose has more "considerable authority"? Who made this local incident into a national scandal? Who is buddy buddy with President Obama? Maybe Sgt. Crowley did abuse his authority somewhat but so did Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., starting with his "You don't know who you're messing with" gambit, but going well beyond that. . . Oh and I agree that he almost certainly acted like a jerk as well.
Give me a break, Robin. The guy with the gun, the handcuffs, and the governmental power to put you in a cruiser and drive you to the police station against your will has all the authority.
"My working assumption is that Gates acted like a jerk. So what? It's immaterial."
No Dan, it is not immaterial.
To the contrary, Gates' behavior is central to the whole debate.
Did his "acting like a jerk" cross the line from jerky to misdemeanor?
The focus should be on what Gates did, since it is GATES' behavior that will ultimately determine what Crowley's liability might be.
So far, Gates' behavior is the one subject that none in the media is willing to address.
Wonder why?
"The Officer has the right to arrest you for "stuff"."
Well, that's just it. I don't think this is the case (legally – I know that it happens in real life). Doesn't the "stuff" he arrests you for have to be a crime? And if it isn't, but the officer makes stuff up in his report to justify the arrest, is the arrest "constitutional"?
Ikcape: It's really very simple. It's fair to say that Crowley's report describes the worst Gates' behavior could possibly have been. And many of us who've read Crowley's report, over and over, can't see any reason why Crowley felt the need to arrest Gates.
Further investigation is not going to make Gates look any worse than Crowley has already claimed. And it might make him look quite a bit better.
All right, Dan. Keep stirring up the racism. That'll help to eliminate it. Nonsense.
I haven't had an adversarial meeting with a police officer for over 20 years, but I'm tempted to invite an officer over and make a scene, just so we can get the White House invite. I mean, a free beer is a free beer, no? But I guess it's a trick that works just once.
And in advance of the report of the meeting, here's what I see as the best-case scenario:
- Crowley admits he was wrong to arrest Gates;
- Gates admits that he behaved badly toward Crowley, and takes back his accusations of racism;
- The two of them go on a speaking tour to explore their experiences of racism and interaction with constituted authority.
Kumbayah optional.
Dan, Your readers might be interested in Sun Times columnist Mary Mitchell's take.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1692298,CST-NWS-mitch30.article
What we need to hear from President Obama on this subject is straight talk — not jive talk over a few beers.
My thoughts exactly….thanks for the forum here.
Some people here are so off their rockers…lol
Bill Baar says: "if…Crowely (sic) violated Prof Gate's Civil Rights, and Cambridge dodges the crime by dropping the Charges, it is the job of Obama's Justice Department to prosecute the Cop under Federal Laws.
DUDE, this is not a federal crime for the Dept. of Justice. There are District Attorney's who decide which cases will be prosecuted and which ones won't. If you think the charges should have moved forward, then you should call the County DA's Office and tell 'em so. Many others are thanking them for stopping this frivolousness before it brought anymore embarrassment to Cambridge, the police system and race relations (too late on all fronts, tho)
She really wrote "jive talk." Good lord..
It really scares me how many people took the police report as gospel truth assuming that it must be true, and now are not bothered by Crowley's inaccuracies.
Gates' interview was his side of the story and nobody expects it not to be self-serving. Indeed, some of Crowley's interviews have been pretty self-serving as well.
But a police report is a different thing. That's supposed to be the facts without a bunch of self-serving embellishment.
CC
Damn, no sooner do I leave a comment, than I see the same Bill Baar using "jive talk" vernacular in his post. This guy is either completely ignorant to the law, race and civil rights or he's just baiting the dialogue on this topic.
Hoping that you're just plain ignorant, Bill… "Jive" originated as a term to mock African-American English as they struggled to acclimate from the native African languages they were abducted from.
Dan, the point that is being made is that you nor any other commenter were present at the incident.
We have strident voices claiming foul based an limited facts and a lot of hear-say.
Gates may well have crossed a line. His colleagues have supported his contentions.
Crowley may well have been being "kind" to Gates in his written report.
Who are you to say differently?
Were you there?
If not, you are making an assumption based on a leap of faith.
The DA ELECTED not to prosecute. No useful conclusion as to actual guilt can be drawn. Inference, yes; conclusion, no. To argue otherwise shows an ill-formed view of the legal system.
Your moral outrage is just theater.
Mary Mitchell used the word Jive. She used it against Obama, a fellow show goes pretty far back with. She's angry. If you think she's racist, write her at the Sun Times.
Re: DUDE, this is not a federal crime for the Dept. of Justice.
This is exactly what the Federal Civil Rights laws are for. Officer Burdge in Chicago goes to trial for torture, because States Attorney Richard Daley (now Mayor) declined to pursue charges.
The City and County declined, but the Feds are going after on the one charge that's a Federal Crime: Officer Burge arrested and tortured people. Burge violated their civil rights.
Correction:
Gates may well have crossed a line. Crowley's colleagues have supported his contentions.
Bill, what Mitchell is angry about is that Crowley and his kneejerk rightwingnut supporters are getting off easy here, when she sees this as an opportunity to confront them on their racist actions.
Bill Baar: your "My thoughts exactly" makes the "jive talk" comment yours on this forum, not the SunTimes writer. And Gates' arrest is not a civil rights "violation," especially since the DA made the decision to drop the charges. There may be other charges he has the right to pursue based on the arrest and mug shot images that have smeared his global reputation, but those are not charges that would likely reach the federal level.
If you ever want a substantive Conversation About Race, feel free to connect. Bur this forum appears to have made all of the necessary and salient points.
…"Jive" originated as a term to mock African-American English as they struggled to acclimate from the native African languages they were abducted from.
Well, you think Mary M was making a point here maybe?
Bull Jive or Jive a deraugtory term I here used often among Chicago AA Dems. It goes back to legendary Alderman…
From How Chicago Politics Shaped Obama,
The people who helped launch Obama's early career are proud of the Democratic nominee and pleased that they share a piece of history — how to be tough, how to work the system, how to survive.
But several people expressed a certain discomfort about how Obama used that Chicago education as his star continued to rise.
"I'm afraid he learned to go along," says Dobry, the Hyde Park political activist. "There's a fellow I know, another committeeman, 'Bull Jive' Taylor. [He] used to say to me, 'Alan, why don't you go along? Everything would be so much easier. Everything would be so much smoother.' And I think Barack learned to go along. It may get him elected president, but it doesn't make me happy."
Read Mary's column and you'll realize she's a Chicago AA Women who thinks Obama at the moment, is a guy going along…. a charge Obama's long fast from many AA's in Chicago mostly because he did not share their history.