In college, some of my friends majored in history. Others braved the pre-med gauntlet. I graduated in 2001 with a degree in something or other, but my concentration was really in what you might call police scanner science. For three years, I covered the police beat for the Harvard Crimson, which was -- is -- the city of Cambridge's only breakfast table daily. When my friends would be out studying or dating, I'd be chasing cops. If the crime happened to be near Harvard's campus, I'd get there before they would, which occasionally proved disconcerting.
During my four years at Harvard, I got to know quite a few Cambridge police officers -- black officers, white officers, Hispanic officers -- and I became familiar with the tinder box that is racial politics in Cambridge. Take wealthy white (or nonwhite) patricians affiliated with Harvard, add liberal activists (not always so rich) who were attracted to the city because of its progressive legacy, add diversity that mirrors the composition of the United States, add blue collar, mostly ethnic white cops who were lifers in the police department...and it's not hard to see how racial sensitivities could be so acute. But in Cambridge, class sensitivities are often as touchy. Town-gown relations ebb and flow but always create tension between anything that suggests "Harvard" and anything that suggests "Cambridge." Cops tend to be working class joes and janes, and professors tend to be patricians. Intermixes like this happen often.
What happened to Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr. is hardly unique and in my reporting experience; these clashes tend to involve young white students being strung out by overaggressive cops on generally bogus "disorderly conduct" charges, which is the Cambridge police officer's catch-all charge for "generally just pissing me off and acting holier than thou." Indeed, college kids in Cambridge often showed disrespect for the cops, so it's not surprising that the cops felt disrespected by the students.
I remember listening one night to a report of a loud party in the Kendall Square neighborhood near MIT. A single cop arrived. He was white. The partygoers, about a dozen of them, were black. It's sensible in 1 on 12 situations -- even for something as relatively minor as a quality of life complaint -- for the cop to call for back-up. The cop did. At some point before the back-up arrived, a scuffle began. Who touched whom was unclear, at least to someone listening over the police radio. Within 5 minutes, more than a dozen Cambridge officers were at the scene -- most of the entire city's night shift deployment. 12 on 12. The cops are thinking that one of their guys is in trouble, and the partygoers are thinking that the cops have shown up because they are black. More scuffling. People are arrested. Lawsuits are filed.
Gates was understandably angry that he was being harassed in his house, mouthed off the to the police officer (legal, but never, ever a good idea), and was hauled away in cuffs for being too loud, apparently. The officer defends himself: he's a guy with a history of racial conciliation. A neighbor reported a break-in; the officer went to the house expecting to see someone breaking into a house; indeed, when he arrived, a guy was inside a house. The officer will go to his grave being convinced that he was following police procedure, and Gates will probably never be convinced that his race was not the prime factor in his brief detention. Gates's physical appearance may be exculpatory for Crowley. If the general idea is that Crowley was unconsciously motivated by racial prejudice, it's hard to imagine why he'd find a 5 foot 7 inch tall guy with graying hair and a cane to be threatening because of his race. Crowley seems to be more motivated by power and authority, which Gates (again, legally and perhaps appropriately, given the situation) ridiculed.
I'd bet that most police officers across the country have at least some sympathy for the officer. I'd wager that most of them might agree that the officer was being pushy when he put Gates in handcuffs...for no other reason than that he could. It's a mild form of excessive force, but one that police use all the time to intimidate people...most of them deserving of intimidation. Gates was not.
President Obama, meanwhile, has weighed in on the side of Professor Gates, saying the cops were "acting stupidly" That's a harsh conclusion based on what we know -- Gates has always had a flair for the media, and his side of the story has been embraced by liberals looking for evidence that racial animus remains an enormous problem in this country. I happen to agree with the liberals in this case. The President has shown a unique ability to understand how different points of view often lead to unnecessary conflicts like this one. It will be interesting to see if he modifies his point of view. (Update: lo' and behold...)
The police officer was just wrong. And your story about the students kinda proves the point. Had this been a full grown white male he would not have been subjected to this treatment. But the police officer acted like the Prof. was some college kid and I was college kid in Boston. We come with our own set of craziness. But to treat a grown black person has patriarchal implications that the mainstream just doesn't seem to get.
You're right. Given the circumstances you propose, Mr. Gates would most likely have not demonstrated the behavior that led to his arrest. I am sympathetic, and Lawrence Auster has a modest proposal aimed at preventing these obvious injustices from being repeated in the future.
Sound good to you?
The officer defends himself; a neighbor reported a break-in;
Apparently this is false according to your fellow blogger:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/clarification_on_the_woman_who_called_the_cops.php
OK so Ambinder has now edited the statement to include:
The officer defends himself: he's a guy with a history of racial conciliation.
According to one of your formerly fellow blogger, saving a drowning black man doesn't give you a history of racial conciliation:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/bias-racism-being-a-jerk-and-abuse-of-power.php
Now we see the Officer Crowley edition of the saga, as he explains that he once tried to save the life of a black man, so he must not be a racist. And of course the great thing about the contemporary United States is that the number of people who are so racist that they would willfully let a black man die rather than lift a finger to save him is extremely small.
Also, Ambinder has edited this statement:
the officer went to the house expecting to see someone breaking into a house; indeed, when he arrived, Gates was inside the house.
Earlier it read that the officer found Gates in the middle of breaking in, which was false. Now, the statement doesn't make sense (especially with the use of the word indeed). Finding the owner of the house inside his own house somehow reinforces suspicion of break-in?
It seems you have made yet another edit, without acknowledging earlier errors. Most bloggers, mark edits with "updates" and keep the previous portions with crossed out lines. It is disappointing to see that you don't.
Ambinder, you thin-skinned hack, quit banning people and deleting their comments for pointing out your monstrous deficiencies as a journalist. This exhibition of your gnawing insecurity is unseemly.
I want to reply to Qjake, but it won't let me. So, I'm doing it this way instead. My reply to Qjake is this:
"Being a jerk is also kind of unseemly."
That is all.
Abhinav - Get a life.
The key to this case is understanding standard police protocol; and in this case, it demonstrates the officer did not follow it.
You probably do not know this, but right now, if an officer knowingly wrongfully arrested you, you could not do any more than passively arrest if you want to avoid a conviction for resisting arrest.
Most people defending the officer in this case seem to assume the officer was either acting in defense of self, others or property at the time he made the arrest. This is simply not indicated by the facts as they have been presented by the police.
Understanding that the officer was only in a position at the time to deescalate a understandably angry and confused resident once the emergency passed, it becomes clear the officer did not do so. In fact, the officer escalated the situation by making the arrest.
Now, if you were yelled at by someone else because you were mistakenly trying to protect someone, and you thought, that no good ungrateful son of a bitch, let's see how he likes it when I tie him up... then, when the police came, you would be arrested for assault, battery, attempted kidnapping, etc.,. and just think, you were not even trained to deescalate situations. Cops don't have a license to be jerks just because the situation didn't turn out the way they originally thought. In fact, they are paid and trained to do the opposite, and if they cannot adapt to the situation as it changes, they should choose another line of work.
Tom Shales, the television critic for The Washington Post, who's reviewed every presidential press conference for over 30 years, called Obama's remark about the Cambridge Police "refreshingly blunt." Was it "harsh", as Marc Anbinder claims? It was based on the fact that the policeman in question must be presumed to have been acting within what he believed was departmental policy. So the president was entitled to presume that that authorized arresting someone who had not otherwise committed a crime but who was loudly criticizing the officer. Is that "stupid"? It is, unless you believe that free speech about police officers to their face should be illegal. I would submit to you that any policeman who believes it is appropriate to arrest someone who is criticizing them too harshly had better opt for a line of work in a more sensitive setting, like a hair salon or a toy store. Let's not forget that conservatives have been brow-beating us for decades about the sacrosanct status of anyone who wears a uniform -- that they can do no wrong, are the shining emblems of our national honor, and all the rest. Forget the fact that police brutality is a worldwide phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality. I once dated a woman who had been a Cincinnati police officer for ten years, until she resigned because of physical harassment from male officers. She once told me: "Do not ever argue with a male police officer. Half the men on any police force are in that line of work because they enjoy physical confrontations. They are just waiting to be challenged." Was it stupid for Gates to yell at the officer? Yes. Was it stupid to arrest him? Yes. The President was right.
"disorderly conduct" charges, which is the Cambridge police officer's catch-all charge for "generally just pissing me off and acting holier than thou."
This, I think, is the real issue that should be highlighted, and I think Obama's characterization the Officer's reaction as "stupid" instead of "racist" is appropriate. Lots of Police Officers are honorable people, who take "Serve & Protect" seriously, but I've encountered plenty of people who have obtained badges for the wrong reasons--for power, and who demand obedience and take it personally if you assert your rights. Being hauled away in handcuffs for essentially exercising your 1st Am. rights is an all too common occurrence, and because it usually constitutes perhaps a night's incarceration, there is rarely much pushback from the community, and if there is, commanding officers are quick to circle the wagons. I think its important for this kind of Police behavior to be challenged because otherwise it tells certain officers that they are above-the-law, and if unchecked, that mentality can easily lead to greater abuses or tragedies of unnecessary esclation.
*=Even if I am, I will never admit it.
Edit: 2nd paragraph July 23, 2009 post 4:47.
Should be "passively resist arrest".
Should not be "passively arrest"
On what do you base the conclusion that of the people subjected to "a mild form of excessive force" by police officers, "most of them [are] deserving of intimidation"?
The law is neutral on resentment. For better or worse, a cop cannot be excused from a bad (even unlawful) arrest because he resents a Harvard professor yelling at him, whether that professor is black or white.
Probably true. But that is a great case for laws which prohibit the provocation of a police officer. If there were such a law perhaps people would treat the men and women who patrol our streets as though they were garbage.
I have no doubt in my mind that both Gates and Officer Crowley took things too far. The news reports I saw/heard had Gates mouthing off and telling Officer Crowley where his mother was after he had proven his ID. "Leave well enough alone" comes to mind.
Everybody knows its CopPsych 101 that tells them to never let someone else control the scene. Yes, Crowley should have taken those words and just left but there are rules in place to prevent the abuse of a peace officer.
Sure, Gates was tired and understandably irritated when his door wouldn't open after a trip. Last thing he wants to do is to explain himself to some average joe, blue-collar townie. Sure, Crowley was investigating a scene that turned out to be exactly as was described on the police radio. Last thing he wants to do is arrest a guy who just got home from holiday.
I don't know who said what to whom. I wasn't there. Its not a black/white issue. It just turned out to be a perfect set-up for a bad ending.
"that is a great case for laws which prohibit the provocation of a police officer"
Yes, let's have the government pass laws that make it a crime to express negative views about government agents.
That's not the point...The point is to prevent the abuse of another human, even if he is a uniformed officer. There is a point where that officer can call you on your bluff, much the same way you can report someone for lewd behavior, even if they haven't physically assualted you.
"Yes, let's have the government pass laws that make it a crime to express negative views about government agents."
Thank you.
@smilly:
Lewd behavior and political speech are two very different things.
You are on a very slippery slope.
Agree with Carrington - 'prevent abuse" is all well and good, but it's impossible to enforce laws prohobiting verbal abuse without prohibiting freedom of speech. Because verbal abuse is very much a matter of perception - what's a logical criticism to some will get others arrested.
I believe we wrote that in the Constitution somewhere. Must check that.
When you treat a police officer like he is scum stuck to the bottom of your shoe you shouldn't be surprise if you get treated poorly.
The police officers did not go to Gate's house looking to pick a fight with an innocent black man -- but that is exactly what happened. Had Gates treated the men who came to his door with the least bit of respect that they (and anyone else) deserves, the incident would never have happened.
It is probably true (though not definitely) that the officers stepped out of line in their arrest of Gates. But had Gates acted the way I suspect he acted (based on what I have read), I likely would have done much worse to the disrespectful, priviledged SOB. Its a good thing I am not a cop.
I find it hard to have sympathy for the arresting officer after hearing what he had to say in this interview with a local Boston news station:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/07/henry-louis-gates-arresting-officer.html
Uh, what? This argument seems to imply that racial prejudice is based on finding individual members of the race you are prejudiced against threatening. Maybe the officer involved here just has contempt for all people with skin a different color from his own, which is the usual measure of racism.
The arrest of Professor Gates shows us what the Police will do if they’re given a chance - make arrests, justified or not. This is a problem we’ve been dealing with in Baltimore for many years, worse now since ”homeland security” money has allowed the police force to gear-up and man-up to the point of bursting - now they’re all dressed up with nowhere to go. Pulling citizens out of their homes on charges that will never be prosecuted, arresting “loiterers”, arresting little kids messing with bikes (Three boys, ages 7, 8 and 11, were arrested after a neighbor spied them stealing bicycle parts from Northeast Baltimore, Baltimore Sun July 20, 2009). All easy ways for a cop to get in his required court time, essential for promotions. David Simon eloquently sums it up in this Bill Moyers interview “You don't even need probable cause anymore in Baltimore. The guy who solves a rape or a robbery or a murder, he has one arrest stat. He's going to court one day. The guy who has 40, 50, 60 drug arrests (or loitering, or “disorderly conduct”, etc.) even though they're meaningless arrests, even though there's no place to put them in the Maryland prison system, he's going go to court 40 or 50 or 60 times. Ultimately, when it comes time to promote somebody, they look at the police computer. They'll look and they'll say, "This guy's made 40 arrests last month. You only made one. He's the Sergeant." You know, or, "That's the Lieutenant." So the guys who basically play the stat game, they get promoted”. This Cambridge cop was probably just doing what he does all the time, arresting anyone for anything…If he knew who Gates was…obviously he would have treated him differently than he treats all his other “perps”, and we would not have a prominent example of how we essentially have a police and criminal justice system that is corrupted, mean and thoughtless. Brutal. Spend a night in jail for no reason and you’ll see -it’s too often about who is an easy mark for a cop forced to become a predator by his own system.
I am a former citizen of Massachusetts and just got off the phone with a friend who is a police officer. According to him whatever Professor Gates said in his home could not and would not have gotten him arrested. A common tactic with police in his department (a city bordering Cambridge), as well as in most jurisdictions that he is aware of (including Cambridge), is to ask a belligerent person to "come outside to talk". Once outside the person continues being loud and therefore "causes surprise and alarm" to any members of the public. That condition met, the person has become disorderly in the eyes of the law and is promptly arrested.
He suspects that the officer viewed Professor Gates as an abusive and privileged ("do you know who I am") asshole and knew that inviting him to come outside was the same as inviting him to be arrested. According to him every cop from the lowliest patrol officer to the chief knows about this abuse.
I really wish Obama had either shut-up about this or found some way to be more "presidential" in his comments. I knew he would be retreating as soon as I heard what he initially said.
We are still a segregated society in many ways health, in fact if not in law. Backs still have much higher rates of poverty, unemployment, poor quality education, housing and health care, and consequently higher rates of crime, drug use, imprisonment and so on. The evidence for this is overwhelming. More police and more prisons are not going to cure all these massive social and economic problems like hedge planting, and in any case we already lock up more people in this country that the rest of the Western world combined.