Slow Learner
The whole Obama/Gates fiasco continues to fascinate me and illuminate my own ignorance on race relations in America. But let me back up…
My family dates well back into 17th century America. As far as Americans go, we’re relatively old. The last real immigrant in our family was well over a century ago and… well… he was an odd ball 
At the same time, I am a child of the South. My parents are Texans and whenever I lived in America, it was below the Mason-Dixon line (until I moved to Wisconsin). I’m proud of my family and my heritage.
My childhood days were spent in Riyadh. My friends were British, Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Saudi, Greek, and whatnot. I never knew a distinction in race and my parents never instilled in me a bias - favorably or unfavorably - on the basis of race or religion. My school was international and my upbringing was beige.
Then, when I was eleven, we moved back to America. I was immersed in a culture that I didn’t really understand. There was racial animosity that I couldn’t understand or appreciate. Years later, I understand the legacy of it better, but still don’t buy into it. I hold no animosity for the ills perpetrated on my ancestors and can’t conceive those who blame me for the travesties committed by my ancestors. We are people. Individuals. I take people as individuals and hope people take me as an individual. I truly can’t fathom those who look at other people as a member of a race, class, etc. and transpose an entire persona on them based on that. It just seems moronic.
So… here I am… educated by history, but oblivious to the emotions of America’s racial/racist past. It’s a curse and a blessing. Perhaps I’m “post-racial,” but that assumes that I was, at some point, racial.
Back to the genesis of this post… In evaluating the Gates/Obama mess, Gates was a jerk, Obama spouted off with worn and inaccurate racial rhetoric, and it would be best if we have serious discussions regarding race relations instead of obsessing about the bloviations of a couple of goofs.
Then why are you “obsessing about the bloviations of a couple of goofs” with this post? You’re not offering anything to help spark the “serious conversation” that you seem to think can so easily be started (other than your self-congratulatory “I don’t see race” blather).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 2251 hrs
This controversy has been lingering for 4 or 5 days. My one post constitutes “obsessing?”
Sorry, goof, you’re part of the problem.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2009 at 2256 hrs
So, by attempting to get into his own home, Gates was a jerk? How dare he?
What happened to all of the Castle Doctrine rhetoric that we normally see here? Does that not apply in this case? If not, why not?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0414 hrs
I like how disingenuous these lefties are.
Gates profiled the cop. Gates is a racist jerk. Gates decided to mouth off enough that he caused a crowd of onlookers to gather on the street, at which point he was arrested for disorderly conduct (you know, that whole “disturbing the peace” thing).
The fact that grumps (i.e. disingenuous idiot lefty) is still trying to defend him speaks volumes of his (grumps’) honesty. Hey grumps, they released the calls and recordings from the arrest, go listen to them, and then tell me the cop did something wrong. Until then, maybe you should shut your piehole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0654 hrs
Gates was a jerk because when the police asked him to step out onto the porch and show ID, he let loose a bunch of racial epithets and “don’t you know who I am"s. I absolutely despise people, regardless of their racial heritage, who pull the “don’t you know who I am” crap. Self-important arrogant jerks.
If the police showed up on my doorstep saying that a neighbor had called in a possible breaking and entering (she didn’t mention they were black either), I would be happy my neighbors were paying attention, I would show the officer my ID and let them look around to make sure there wasn’t anyone in the house holding a gun to a family member or something.
Gates needed to get a grip, Obama needs to get a clue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0705 hrs
Interesting ideas shared nicely with good concept and nice theme.
Posted by double glazing window on July 28, 2009 at 0724 hrs
this blog is the very definition of an echo chamber. eish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0727 hrs
I think as Presiden of the United States Obama should have waited until he knew ALL the facts. Obama is tight lipped on other issues, but this he runs off at the mouth. I don’t get it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0732 hrs
I take people as individuals and hope people take me as an individual. I truly can’t fathom those who look at other people as a member of a race, class, etc. and transpose an entire persona on them based on that. It just seems moronic.
And yet in regards to left and right, liberal and conservative, Dem and Repub, entire persona’s are transposed onto people on this blog all the time. Case in point from an entry you made up above…
Much as the socialists among us like to sneer at the profit motive, history proves that there has never been a more powerful and productive engine to the betterment of mankind.
Here you are painting anyone who supports health care reform with the broad brush of being a socialist. That’s a significant charge just because someone holds a different opinion than you over the level of government involvement in one aspect of the economy.
Now obviously there is a difference in the level of offense one can take from a person assigning a particular idea a person has to a broad category of ideas that you believe that person must then share, and assigning someone to a category based on their race. But the mechanism one engages in to make those generalizations is the same.
I tend to agree with you that Gates stereotyped/profiled the officer on the scene. I’m sympathetic to the reasons why (based on a couple of articles I’ve read about him it appears this is an issue he’s dealt with in the past), but I don’t forgive him for engaging in the very type of activity he was supposed to be denouncing. At the sametime I think it is just as dumb to condem Gates without knowing all of the factors that motivated him to act the way he did, especially when examples of his type of behavior are present in this forum on a daily basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0944 hrs
“think it is just as dumb to condem Gates without knowing all of the factors that motivated him to act the way he did, “
I hate that line of thinking. Everyone on the planet should be condemning Gates. He acted as an arrogant race baiter. His motivation, history etc, don’t matter. Could be the nicest guy in the world, and have a really sad history, and NONE of that matters, or excuses his actions. You don’t have to condemn the man, but we should all condemn the actions.
There is still racism in the world, but there are so many Gate’s in the world yelling it at every *#$^%& inconvenience, that I think many of us just brush off all claims as just as frivolous.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0958 hrs
You don’t have to condemn the man, but we should all condemn the actions.
How is that different than what I said? I said he engaged in exactly the type of behavior he was denouncing and I don’t forgive him for that. I then said we shouldn’t condem Gates when it happens around here all the time. We’re saying the same thing. Condem the action, but don’t assume that just because someone acted irresponsibily in one instance that they do it all the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1015 hrs
At the sametime I think it is just as dumb to condem Gates without knowing all of the factors that motivated him to act the way he did, especially when examples of his type of behavior are present in this forum on a daily basis.
Do white people get the same free-pass from condemnation if they make an assumption about a person of color based on “all the factors that motivated them to act the way they do”
If we are going to justify “playing the race card” then we might as well just resign ourselves to a future of racial conflict, because thats all we are ever going to have.
if we are going to segregate ourselves with “black entertainment television” and identify ourselves by race with “congressional black caucuses”... If we are going to designate ourselves as a “black community” and have “black community leaders” then we will accentuate the differences in ourselves daily and perpetuate disharmony FOREVER.
There are PLENTY of people willing to leverage the “problem” for political gain and news media attention, but I have YET to see those people contribute to part of the solution.
At the end of the day, like so many causes, people become dependent upon them. People NEED racism (or the appearance of it) to accomplish their political goals. People NEED racism to justify their organizational missions. I don’t expect people who’s live mission is dependent upon the proliferation of racism to every REALLY take an honest look at how to eliminate it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1055 hrs
Gates is a racist. That’s his job. He sees everything in terms of the color of someone’s skin.
Why a fool like this can gain so much attention for mouthing off to a cop and ignoring warnings is beyond me. The sad part is that Barry and Michelle all buy into this race hating, American hating rhetoric. That’s he he shot his mouth off without knowing the facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1338 hrs
Anyone see the transcript of the 911 call? In essence she says that an elderly woman stopped her to point out a couple of men forced their way into the house. She says the men have suitcases (not back packs as the police report claims), she says they may live in the house she saw them entering, and only on prompting does she say that ome of them might be hispanic (not two black men as in the police report).
Who knows if she changed any of this information with the responding officers. But it lends some credibility to the argument that the police on call brought race into the situation, even if it was unintentional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1350 hrs
How can you confess complete ignorance on the topic of race relations in this country, but at the same time call Obama’s rhetoric worn and inaccurate?
Your impression of this situation has to be based on something, and it’s not actual life experience, as you admit yourself. It’s impossible to have a serious discussion on race relations with people who are just guessing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1556 hrs
@Owen. When did this place turn into RDW? You asked some thoughtful questions about race in America and the ridiculous name-callers came scuttling from under the baseboards.
Didn’t you write that you were going to hold a higher standard here? How’s that working out?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1820 hrs
Conservatives are racist because the left wants them to be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 2000 hrs
I fault the cop for this reason: it was his job to de-escalate the situation. Cops are trained to NOT let people push their buttons. The cop was called for a possible break-in. Once he determined there was no break-in, he had done his job.
Gates was obnoxious, but he had broken no laws. It is not a crime to be obnoxious—even to a cop (stupid, yes; crime, no).
Arguing whether the cop was racist is a red herring. He allowed himself to be goaded into losing his cool. Which is not cool for a cop.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 2116 hrs
Of all the comments posted here thus far, purrfect mamma has come closest to getting to the heart of the issue. Was this a case of racial profiling as most people think of it? I don’t know, but certainly Professor Gates thought so. Could this scenario been avoided? Abso-freaking-lutely!
Taking race out of the equation for a moment, here is what happened: Professor Gates returns from a trip in the middle of the day and has trouble getting his door open with his house key; he and his driver are seen pushing against the door. A neighbor calls the police saying two men are trying to push open a front door. The police arrive. Gates is already in the house. Officer Crowley asks for him to step out of the house and produce identification. Gates asks why, tells Crowley it’s his house, but eventually produces ID; he remains inside the house. Crowley insists he comes out. Gates asks for Crowley’s name and badge number; Crowley does not reply. Angry words are exchanged between Gates and Crowley. More police arrive and neighbors start to gather. Gates comes out onto porch and is placed in handcuffs and arrested. Charges are later dropped. Several things come to mind:
1. The 911 call to police makes no mention of the race of the men at the front door, yet the police report states that the officers were responding to a report of a burglary involving two black men. Now, just who is responsible for injecting race into this scenario? The finger seems to point towards Office Crowley and/or the Cambridge Police Department.
2. Obviously both parties lost their cools, but Crowley could have explained to Gates that they were responding to a call, apologized for the inconvenience and that they were just making sure everything checked out. Or, he could have asked if Gates was OK. Or, he simply could have walked away. Instead, Crowley was now motivated by anger and arrested Gates for “Disorderly Conduct”. Or, was Gates arrested for “Failure to Display Proper Deference to a Police Officer”?
3. The Cambridge Police Department has come to Crowley’s defense stating that not only has he gone through Diversity/Sensitivity Training, but that he has instructed other officers on the subject. They also trot out a fellow black officer who claims he is a good friend of Crowley’s and that Crowley is not a racist. Cool. No problem. But, if Crowley is so well versed on Police Diversity/Sensitivity, wouldn’t he be cognizant that this situation could easily be construed as racial profiling of an affluent, influential citizen of Cambridge? How can he be so well versed and yet be so blind to the situation?
4. Why is this even being discussed in the National political arena? I mean, President Obama was asked this question at his News Conference on his Health Care plan. Why was it even asked in the first place? Sorry, but I can’t believe that George Bush or John McCain would have been asked this same question under the same circumstances. So once again, race has been injected.
Sorry for rambling, but I thought this thread needed a different direction. This is SO far beyond Gates and Obama. Race is America’s obsession, and you’re right, more discussion needs to happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0017 hrs
Gates would have thought the cop was racist if he came to the door giving away free baseball cards.
Give me a break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1028 hrs
Sorry Bill, but you know this how? Yeah, right. You don’t. Neither do I.
But you already have your opinions which seem to outweigh any facts that could be presented otherwise. Continue to carry on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1038 hrs
@laker
Wjhen asked for his name and badge, Officer Crowley DID respond. calmly, with the requested information, not once, but 3 times. Each time Mr Gates got louder, and insisted that he was being treated this way only because of his race. The ID prdoced was a University ID, no address on it showing that he was in fact at his home. The vocal altercation was conducted on the front porch and was attracting a crowd, this is disturbance of the peace. Officer Crowley, according to all reports, remained calm throughout. It was Mr Gates who was vocal to the point of attracting attention. Officer Crowely warned Mr Gates several times about the intent to arrest him for disturbing the peace, to which Mr Gates only continued. My take, he (Gates) was guilty of at least poor judgement in when to make a scene, at the worst, racism of his own and in fact disturbing the peace.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1240 hrs
Being guilty of poor judgment is not against the law (in and of itself). Mr. Gates has every right to tell this cop to screw off. See the First Amendment. The cop absolutely does not have the right to arest gates for talking. Here’s a quote by Judge Alex Kozinski from a case called Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona that breaks it down pretty well:
Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.
[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech-such as stopping or hassling the speaker-is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…
No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.
It’s amazing how the rightwingers don’t care at all about the constitution on this one. They’d rather bow down to their big government cop overlords.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1256 hrs
Purrr Mamma- Actually, if you are causing a disturbance and refusing to comply with a police office that is a crime…disorderly conduct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1309 hrs
Actually, it’s not.
http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1311 hrs
You can say whatever you want to a cop and it isn’t disorderly conduct. It’s free speech. You can refuse to comply with a cop all you want if he is unlawfully asking you to do something.
Seriously, when did all you rightwingers become so in favor of oppressive government? I swear I’ve heard some of you guys allege that you are in favor of your constitutional rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1319 hrs
Laker
1. No race was brought up except by the caller and the 911 operator. One was thought to be hispanic. The 911 op asked normal questions about the description. He did not get farther than white black or hispanic. The police report did state that the witness said after the facts were all out that there were two black men possible with backpacks. The police did not add to this just reported it. Your conclusions are wrong.2. It is not obvious to anyone if the police lost their cool. As the police were leaving the scene, that is when Gates had to get that last word in and went after the Crowley’s mother. He deserved a punch in the mouth, but only got a Disorderly. The cop showed restraint. Not about being black or white but about being a man that is what Gates and apparently, you need to think about.
3. Again the police were leaving when Gates Flared up again. Diversity is a wonderful thing. You should not judge others that step up on the color of their skin and assume that they had to be trotted out. Another assumption on your part, but again the wrong conclusion.
4. George Bush? Really! No Really? Get over it. Barry screwed up and made himself look like a racist and small, shallow man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1356 hrs
Jesus
There is Huge difference in the gates case and all the other cases that were brought up. That would be probable cause. There was enough information for the police to enter, whether they did or did not it does not matter. The suspect was asked for specific information and proof. A college ID is not enough. No address. Ultimately the officer can demand this until the scene is under control and the safety including his own has been secured. In this case, it was not. No one knows if there was not someone else in the house holding a gun on Gates’ children in an upstairs closet. If this was, the case and the officer did leave with just the word of Gates and something happened to the children. (I do not know if Gates has children and was using that as an example of unknowns that every officer faces)The officer would be fired and literally crucified by the press and every libtard out there. There is a balance and the office walked the line extremely well. You cannot say whatever you wish to a cop. Not everything is free speech. IF Gates would have said that he was going to assassinate the Great Barry, see how long it would take him to be thrown in jail. Please see point number 2 above for the answer to the point about saying anything. The officer did not ask him to do anything unlawfully. Simple Ridiculous!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1357 hrs
Not everything is free speech.
You see JISAWM, they’re in favor of free speech as long as the government, or in this case, the police, who are government agents, are OK with it. As long as the police are fine with it you’re free to say anything you want. But if you’re uncivil, well then, your freedom only goes so far.
Conservatives are unsmart.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1413 hrs
“There is Huge difference in the gates case and all the other cases that were brought up. That would be probable cause.”
What probably cause did they have to arrest him after he showed ID? (And who cares if there was no address? The police can easily find out who lives at a particular address, either by looking in their system or by looking at the mailbox).
“No one knows if there was not someone else in the house holding a gun on Gates’ children in an upstairs closet.”
The standard or probably cause is a little stricter than “no one knows…”
“The officer would be fired and literally crucified by the press…”
I don’t care what’s popular or unpopular. I care what’s lawful.
“You cannot say whatever you wish to a cop. Not everything is free speech.”
All speech is speech. Go read the First Amendment. You can absolutely say anything you want to a cop. Unpopular speech about the government is exactly what the First Amendment was meant to protect.
“The officer did not ask him to do anything unlawfully.”
The officer told him to stop talking or he would be arrested. The cop does NOT have the aurthority to lawfully arrest him for talking. So he is absolutely free to ignore the cop’s request.
I’ll add that I do think Gates is a dick. But that’s not against the law. And government acting beyond its authority is a bigger deal to me than loud mouth college professors.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1416 hrs
Wow, I was typing too fast. I just said “probably” cause instead of “probable” cause TWICE.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1418 hrs
Noonan- Actually it is:
Massachusetts…“Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?
A disorderly person is defined as one who:* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
* recklessly creates a risk thereof
* engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
* creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Kelly,
The language you quoted it subsection (a) of the statute. Here’s what used to be subsection (b):
(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.
The Court found this section to be a violation of free speech rights. This tells us two things. First, that the legislature considered “unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance…” to be different than “fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior”, amd second, that the speech part of it is not part of Massachusetts law anymore.
Hope this helps you understand it a little better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1438 hrs
Paul
WOW Just WOW. Please if you are, really this ignorant go to the movies this weekend and when it is packed with people yell “FIRE!” I am not saying that you should or should not be able to do that. I am saying that there is no absolute in Free Anything.
Jesus
The probable case was SOMEONE else calling. Their peace was breeched. At that point, the officer can arrest Gates for disturbing the peace. The other cases have nothing to do with it. The yelling has nothing to do with it. It is not up to the officer to be the judge and decide if he should ticket/arrest the person. It is the responsibility of the police to secure the scene and make it safe. That what was done. Gates after the fact and when everyone was leaving started again. He disturbed the peace again. That is when he was arrested.
It is lawful for an officer to secure the scene. That is the lawful and in this case the right thing to do. Whether you get it or not on being lawful, I really do not care. When an officer is crucified by the press or the PD sued because of unknowns which happens all the time. I care as a taxpayer.
You go read the First amendment and then please read the laws of Mass and then go read the laws of that community and then you let me know what Free Speech is and tell me if this was a free speech issue.
While an office is conducting an investigation, you may certainly be told to SHUT UP or you will be arrested. IF you hinder an investigation because you are running your mouth, you will be arrested.
In the cases that are mentioned the person was running their mouth and the officer had nothing to do with it. The officer was just upset that he got flipped off and the person was swearing at him. No reason to be arrested.
I can agree with you on one thing. The Gubment can go too far and it is up to us to keep them reeled in. The Jack in this case is Gates and if his little feelings got hurt too bad. Barry also should have stayed out.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1455 hrs
Mr. Isjustalrightwithme is correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1458 hrs
“go to the movies this weekend and when it is packed with people yell “FIRE!””
Ugh, do you guys ever get tired of misquoting Holmes’s stupidest bit of dicta? First, Holmes didn’t just talk about shouting fire in a crowded theater, he talked about falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Second of all, that was dicta, it wasn’t the subject of the case. If I remember correctly, the case was about distributing fliers that were critical of the Vietnam war. The court ruled that a law that prohibited distribuitng the fliers WAS constitutional. Now, you don’t have ot be a constitutional scholar to see that Holmes and the rest of the court were WRONG on that one. It was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that speech could only be limited in situations where the speech was “directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action” such as a riot. I think even the Brandenburg court went too far in limiting the First Amendment, but either way, what Gates was doing doesn’t fit that standard.
“The probable case was SOMEONE else calling. Their peace was breeched. At that point, the officer can arrest Gates for disturbing the peace.”
You can’t arrest someone based on a call. That’s not enough for probable cause. Depending on the credibility of the informant, it might be enough for a warrant, but by itself it doesn’t justify the arrest.
“It is not up to the officer to be the judge and decide if he should ticket/arrest the person.”
Are you suggesting cops shouldn’t have to know the law?
“While an office is conducting an investigation, you may certainly be told to SHUT UP or you will be arrested. IF you hinder an investigation because you are running your mouth, you will be arrested.”
What was he investigating at that point? Seriously, cops can’t just do whatever they want and claim it’s an investigation. We CAN say whatever we want to cops. Period. Again, I think Gates is a dick, but he didn’t break the law, Crowley did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1517 hrs
Jack, I can’t speak for Mr. Isjustalrightwithme, but I’m actually an attorney. Constitutional law is a hobby of mine, actually. JIJAWM quotes the relevant Mass. law above and I don’t really see a need to add onto that as it’s pretty clear.
The first amendment is also quite clear and many state statutes governing “disorderly conduct” have fallen under the sword of the first amendment. Many are constructed as overly broad restrictions on free speech, as was the case in Massachusetts.
As for shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, you may be interested to learn the following.
1. The frequently mangled quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes (it actually refers to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre), from the Schenk case was part of a terrible supreme court ruling which allowed the government to ban the distribution of anti-draft flyers during WWI.
2. That case is no longer good law. It was overturned in 1969 in the Brandenburg case, which set the standard for limiting speech as promoting “imminent lawless action”. Two of the concurring opinions (Douglas and Black) asserted that the First Amendment should be taken literally, and that Congress should indeed “make no law”. However, even the majority at large does not punish speech so much as conduct. It is the underlying threat of a riot or some other disaster that may allow for a restriction of speech.
In Gates’ case there is absolutely no way that a disorderly conduct charge would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. I’m sure the DA in question was aware of this.
If you’d like to learn more about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the First Amendment, there are several books I could recommend. In fact, one of my college professors, Donald Downs, is one of the foremost authorities on the First Amendment in the country, and has produced some very interesting scholarly work on the subject. Here is his Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Downs
Finally, the Magicians (and libertarians) Penn and Teller have a nightly show in Las Vegas which takes place in a crowded theater. They start every show by yelling “Fire! Fire! Fire!” They have yet to be arrested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1520 hrs
Noonan- While the disorderly conduct charge may or may not hold up in court is for the court to decide (not us). The officers had every right to charge him with disorderly conduct considering his out burst was hampering the investigation which was called in by a neighbor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1528 hrs
By that insane standard, cops could arrest anyone for literally anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1533 hrs
Kelly,
Cops, like judges, swear an oath to defend and uphold the constitution. They have a duty not to arrest people for stuff they just make up.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1538 hrs
The cops were not making anything up, Gates at first refused to show ID, combine that with his beligerent attitude and the fact that a neighbor thought someone was breaking in, would lead the police to arrest him for disorderly. Not to mention disturbing the peace. Gates refusel to help the officers hampered the inverstigation.
He didn’t just swear at the time, it was a combination of things that lead to his arrest.JIJARWM- Please, these cops were not making things up and for you to say that is inflamatory and down right false.
Gates should be happy that the cops were there checking on his house. Instead he pulls the race card and goes nuts. Right now there is a free pass for anyone to go and rob the home of Mr. Gates. Do you really think a neighbor will call the cops again, after all of this. They won’t,. Then they will get called a racisit because they didn’t call to protect his house.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1555 hrs
The cop did fine until Gates produced ID. At that point there was no excuse for hauling him out of his house in handcuffs. The DA agreed. The cop should have known better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1602 hrs
All this Monday morning quarterbacking. Gates made this situation what it is. He is the one who did not produce an ID. He is the one who was biligerant. He is the one who cried race. He is the one who openly defied the police (who btw were there to protect his house). Did he or did he not continue his biligerant behavior even after producing his ID? Yes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1636 hrs
Yes, as he has the right to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1654 hrs
Gates was not hauled out of his house in handcuffs, he followed the officer outside, and was hauled off of his porch in handcuffs.
Per the police report the officer stated his reason for going outside was that the noise Gates was making inside the house was interfering with his radio communications, and that is very relevant. Is a person within their free speech rights to produce noise sufficient to interfere with such communications and to continue to interfere with such communications by pursuing an officer who has moved way to avoid that interference?
I really don’t see how the ID is very relevant when the individual was observed breaking into the house and then proceeded to refuse to answer questions. As others have pointed out, the possession of an ID with the address did not establish Gates’ right to be in the residence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 1742 hrs
Wow. Has this issue taken on a life of its own in the last 24 hours! But in typical, recent fashion for this site, name calling and insults quickly ensue. Meanwhile, the only real victim is Ms. Whalen, who apparently has been vilified and even threatened for doing the right thing by calling in this incident in the first place. The 911 tapes that have been released prove she did not mention race until pressed by the dispatcher and then when pressed, said one of the men may have been Hispanic. So, where did the “two black men with back packs” statement included in the police report come from?
This entire incident illuminates that this country is far from being “post racial”. In fact, it’s a term I find ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the term “playing the race card”. The media has blown this thing way out of proportion, all the way to the National political level, and the lead story every day this week. And as a result, Obama did/has done three things. First, he answered the question posed. He could have ducked the question or deferred comment, but didn’t; I’m sure at this point he wishes he had. Personally, I thought the question was off base and inappropriate based upon the purpose of the news conference. Many people feel Obama shouldn’t have commented on the issue. I feel he shouldn’t have been put in the situation in the first place. Secondly, he has admitted that he was wrong for what he said. Thirdly, he is attempting to make it right. But, he’s chosen to make it right with Officer Crowley, the Cambridge Police Department and Professor Gates. He doesn’t have to make it right with any of us or with the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0745 hrs
Laker- Good point. I’m stilling waiting for the high and mighty Mrs. Gates to apologies for HIS racist comments about the caller who was calling the police to protect his home?
How about an apology to all American’s for insighting racial conflict.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2009 at 1149 hrs
Correction; Mr. Gates
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2009 at 1150 hrs
Kelly - Mr. Gates has apologized to Ms Whalen, although the details are being kept private; see the attached link from CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/01/harvard.gates.flowers/
As for an apology to “all Americans”, it’s not going to happen, nor should it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2009 at 1710 hrs
OH, Gates can make a ruckus when the racisim is against him, but the apology is quiet. I see.
Laker, you may not want an apology from Gates to the American people, but I certainly do. It’s only right. If it were the other way around….Gates, Sharpton and alike would want one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 0840 hrs
Sigh…. From the link I provided you:
“There was a note included from Gates, the details of which Murphy would not divulge.”
I may be wrong here, but I think (again, I say “I THINK”) Ms. Whalen just wants to be left alone at this point. She appears to be a private person who was just doing the right thing as a concerned citizen; thank God for people like her. She probably just wants to get back to her life. Maybe, just MAYBE, that is why there is no public apology. I would imagine that now that the dust has settled and he has had time to reflect, Prof. Gates regrets some of his comments, but at this point is more concerned about Ms. Whalen’s wishes than yours.
“If it were the other way around….Gates, Sharpton and alike would want one.”
The charges were dropped; Gates did not get an apology. Sharpton has nothing to do with this. Please elaborate on exactly who you mean by “alike”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 0952 hrs
Gates and Obama (alike) both dragged good people and their reputations through the mud, openly and loudly. Gates and especially Obama made this scene even nastier calling the cops stupid. They painted with a broad brush and should have a broad apology.
PS Sharpton said he backed Gates and would help him out if need be.
(alike….means Obama and anyone else who falsely plays the race card)
I’m sure the lady does want this to go away, I’m sure Gates wants this to go away because he showed his true colors. Obama and Gates set back the movement…they didn’t help it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2009 at 0842 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:30 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).