John Wonderly says:

Glad to see someone supporting the Obama position on this, Jeff.

michaelk42 says:

@Phil

It’s pretty much moot since Gates did show ID and prove he was the owner. Apparently Crowley was super-concerned that other people might be the house… up until he arrested Gates for contempt of cop and hauled him off.

Beaten to death at http://carlosmiller.com/2009/07/23/media-missing-the-real-issue-of-the-harvard-prof-arrest/

Phil Marx says:

The first half of this episode is certainly not a moot point, as many people who tell their version of the story indicate that they believe the officer should not have been inside the house to begin with. In fact, this seems to be what outraged Gates himself, as it appears as though his belligerent attitude began when the officer demanded to see identification. Up to that point, the officer was doing exactly as he was required to do under the law. As difficult as it might be for some to accept having to show identification while inside their own home, I think the circumstances leading up to this point cleary show that it was Gates who was overreacting while the officer was just doing his job.

Now, after ID was shown certainly changes the situation. But it sounds to me that after Gates made it clear that he wanted the officer out of his house, the officer complied. Gates then followed him out to the front porch where he continued heckling the officer. Too many accounts of this story make it sound as though the officer went into the house without cause and drug Gates out of his own house. That appears to be very far from the truth.

On the other hand, if the officer was so intent on avoiding a needless confrontation, I wonder why he stopped at the porch and decided to engage Gates again. It seems that he should have just walked off the property entirely and gave Gates a chance to calm down. The fact that he didn’t do this makes me wonder if perhaps he wasn’t a bit over aggressive also.

Phil Marx says:

“It’s not an arrestable offense to be belligerent or annoying.”

Actually, I think it is. If you are being so disruptive that you are prohibiting the officer from doing his job, then yes, it is an arrestable offense. Normally, if the business at hand does not involve the obnoxious person, the officer will simply order them to stay back some distance, thus allowing the officer to see, hear and do whatever his duties require of him. And if that person does not comply with the order, then he is interfering with the police and can and should be arrested for it.

In the case at hand, it sounds as though Gates was intent on chasing the officer as he left the house. Gates is a freaking college professor for christ sake. He should have had enough common sense to realize that een if his complaint were valid, it could not be rectified on the scene. The officer claims to have stted his name several times, yet that is what Gates kept pestering him for. Even if the officer didn’t speak clearly (or Gates just couldn’t here over his own screams) it’s really not that difficult to get the officers name off his chest, or his car number. The officer clearly told Gates “Leave me alone” and Gates willfully disbeyed this lawful command. The arrest was valid, although still perhaps not entirely necessary.

As for dropping of the charges, your claim that this proves they were groundless is itself without merit. I expect that Gates status as a renowned professor, as well as Obama’s insertion of himself into the dispute had much to do with this.

michaelk42 says:

@Phil

It doesn’t matter what you think. It’s not arrestable to be belligerent or annoying. “Prohibiting the officer from doing his job” is over and above that. You’re talking about hypothetical things that justify an arrest, not the facts of this case.

Alternative methods of obtaining name and badge number do not release the officer from the requirement to clearly and immediately supply this information.

At what point did the officer tell Gates to leave him alone? The officer told Gates to come outside. And it doesn’t matter if he told him to leave him alone or not. The officer was on *Gates’* property. If the officer wants to be left alone, he can *leave*. It’s not instantly a lawful command just because the officer utters it. It’s actually an unlawful command with regards to First Amendment rights.

I’d say my dropping charges claim has a great deal of merit, or at least more so than your claim. Your claim that Obama’s involvement had anything to do with it is demonstrably false (the charges were dropped before Obama was involved.) If you’re claiming that charges were dropped simply because Gates is a renowned professor, you’re now charging that the prosecutor is ignoring a crime based on social standing.

I really think you should follow the link I provided earlier. You seem to be lacking facts pertinent to this discussion.

Jeff Pruitt says:

Phil,

You really believe that heckling the police from your front porch is a crime?

Even if that were so, how would it stop the cop from doing his job? At that point his job was to leave. The only person preventing him from leaving was himself. Gates did not barricade him in or not allow him to leave.

The police seem to think they can do whatever the hell they want in this country and when Gates challenged the officer and threw them off his property the officer’s ego was hurt and so he decided to unlawfully arrest him.

Like Obama said, the officer acted stupidly…

michaelk42 says:

This is not Mike. Just testing the new plugin. No CAPTCHA either

Phil Marx says:

The officer didn’t order Gates to come out to the porch. The officer, realizing Gates was out of c control, simply started to walk away, as all those defending Gates say he should have done. The officer stated that if Gates wanted to speak more, he would have to come out to the porch, and it was Gates choice to do so.

And yes, shouting at an officer is illegal. An officer has the right to order you to shut up or to sit down if you are disrupting the peace, and shouting at an officer is exactly that. If you fail to comply with either of these orders, you are obstructing the law. That’s the way the law “is”. If you think it “should be” otherwise, then I think you are inviting anarchy.

Gates was obviously way out of line here. He is the only one to have made racist statements, and he continued doing so up to the point of his arrest. The only point I fault the officer on is that he should have had enough sense to step back a bit and allow Gates to cool off. This would have been difficult to do if he was the only officer on scene, as Gates clearly intended to continue pestering him. But there was at least on other officer on the scene before the point of the arrest.

I think if Officer Crowley had been a little more in control of himself at the time, he would have simply asked the other officer to step forward and see if he could talk with Gates. Of course, I think Gates at that point could have turned to the other officer (the one who he had not yet shouted at and called a racist) and tried to reason with him.

michaelk42 says:

@Phil

I’m getting the idea that you’re simply arguing from a standpoint of what you want to believe, and anything that doesn’t support your predetermined outcome you’re just ignoring.

From the link:

“In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.

“So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.”

Phil Marx says:

Michael,

Just so you’re not misled by reading only my most recent post on my blog, I should point out that I routinely call Chief York a liar, a fool and a coward. In fact, I have publicly stated many times that this is my general assessment of the entire FWPD Command Staff. I have pictures on my blog of the homes of Mayor Henry, Chief York, Deputy Chief/Councilman Bender, as well as of myself standing in front of FWPD headquarters. If you read the words attached to those pictures, you will see that I have plenty of criticism to level at the police. I just state this so you don’t think my reaction is to always side with the cops no matter what happened.

A citizen certainly does have the right to identify an officer who has engaged him, and to eventually have his complaint heard, but not by shouting at the officer. But I also think an officer has the right to tell a citizen to shut up, if that person is shouting at him or somehow interfering with the officer’s duties. And no, I do not think that an officer should have to walk away from the person shouting, but rather that the person should either walk away themselves or quiet down. But if the police provide no channel for this person to eventually speak his mind, then the citizen really has no other choice than to act belligerently.

I have seen some very rogue officers in action in my neighborhood over the years, with behavior that was definitely unprofessional and quite possibly illegal. And at times, such as when I shouted profanities at a passing police car, I have dropped to that level myself. I would say that the most frustrating thing about the people who run FWPD is their lack of honest engagement with the citizens. They tell you not to take your complaints out on the patrol officers, as that is not the proper place and time for it. Yet when you take an issue through the official channels (Internal Affairs, followed by the Safety Review Board), they simply dismiss your complaint without any explanation. The lack of integrity among the Command Staff of FWPD is what forces people to act belligerently towards their officers. It might not be right, but they are given no other choice.

From what I read, I suspect the situation is very similar for most police departments throughout the country. This Leviathan is our own creation, and we can change or destroy it if we wish. But I suspect that if we remove too many of it’s claws, there will come a time when we are faced with another monster, and we’ll probably regret that we no longer have our own monster to protect us.

Prior to the arrest, Gates is the only one who was acting belligerently here, and he was doing so from the very beginning. The officer was only doing what the law and common sense would suggest he do by investigating a possible crime. Gates initially ordered the officer to leave his property while still refusing to show ID. If you think this is acceptable, then all a criminal would have to do to get away with burglary is lie to a police officer when he’s caught. The officer was doing Gates a favor, by ensuring that his home was safe from being burglarized. Gates reacted by exhibiting the type of behavior that you would expect someone who was actually guilty to do.

As for your links, both of them are blogs, with no more credibility as fact than any opinion someone chooses to put on this blog. I am no expert on the law (Massachusettes or otherwise), but the bottom line to me is that if you think that a citizen should be allowed to force a cop to leave a scene simply by shouting at him, then you are inviting anarchy.

Jim Howard says:

Oh and by the way, perhaps Professor Gates did not commit Disorderly Conduct but he was an arrogant jackass from all accounts. Of course, most Professors at Harvard are arrogant jackasses, so I am not discriminating in my comments—equal opportunity for all of Harvard.

me says:

I guess what i don’t understand about this conversation is where people are getting the idea he had no right to be in his house. The cop was there for one reason, a crime had been reported. When the cop showed up the man inside who fit the discription of the person commiting the crime was not cooperating. When he want to get id he went inside. The cop had no choise but to follow him. After the cop was shown the id the guy was still not cooperating. so he asked him outside. At no point did gates cooperate in the investigation of the crime.

Imagine all the what ifs. what if gates did not have a right to be there, what if someone else was inside and gates was acting strangly to get the cops attention. What if gates had something else to hide.

The only thing i can say for sure about this story are that if you acted like this to a cop anywhere while they were investigating a crime you would be in jail for something, and that obama had no reason to say anything untill he knew the facts.

There were too many other people around and the police acted to quickly to clear the cops name for there to be any wrong doing by the cop.

michaelk42 says:

So the police report is a “summary” now.

I believe the phrase I’m looking for is

Oh Snap.