@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Quote:No probable cause = No right to be there.
A neighbor reports a possible break-in at Gates home. The police investigate.
Were they supposed to do so by e-mail or telephone from outside the boundaries of the property?
Was Sgt Crowley supposed to have teleported himself from the premises once he was convinced Prof. Gates was who he claimed to be?
Read what I wrote again Finn. The cop's actions were perfectly reasonable right up until he established that he had no probable cause to be there... which certainly occurred by the time he collected, but didn't return, Mr. Gates' ID. At that moment in time, he crossed the line. Rather than retuning the ID and leaving the NON-crime scene home that he no longer had any business being in; he actually held onto Mr. Gates ID and called more cops to the residence. Just holding the ID at that juncture violated Gates' Fourth Amendment rights, which by way of the 14th have applied to all States since the 60's... but again, this is irrelevant in Massachusetts: Said ID, would certainly fit the statutory definition of "papers", which have been protected against unreasonable seizure for over 24o years in Massachusetts. By calling additional cops to a NON-crime scene because he didn't like Mr. Gates perfectly legal attitude and then inviting Mr. Gates outside, he himself created the disturbance.
Keep in mind, any and all cooperation from a criminal is 100% at the criminal's discretion and is NOT mandatory. Even during a Terry Stop, a suspect is under no obligation to even acknowledge a Law Officer's presence, let alone cooperate with his questioning... and said lack of cooperation alone cannot be deemed sufficient to go from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. In this case, the suspect cooperated enough to eliminate the possibility that he was guilty of the crime being investigated and from that point forward the cop had absolutely no reason to be there, let alone hold his "papers" and call in more cops. At that point, anyone knowledgeable about their constitutional rights would be well justified at becoming irate and indignant. If the cop's own report is to be believed; it reads like a confession of a man abusing his authority against a man who had already proven he was guilty of nothing.
If this happened in Milwaukee, and my Law Firm was lucky enough to be retained ($publicity$), the DA here too would have dropped the charges and apologized just as quickly, because there isn't a lawyer on earth that wouldn't recognize the obvious 4th amendment violation.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Quote:There can no doubt that Mr. Gates’ Rights were violated and little as to why.
Why were Mr. Gates' rights so trampled and abused?
Because he was a loudmouthed jerk or because he is black?
Providing you are conceding Mr. Gates' rights were abused; this is a reasonable question. It may well have been because he was a loud-mouth jerk... but my experience with Law Enforcement makes me tend to strongly doubt it. I doubt there are many cops out there who aren't frequently berated by irate citizens who are guilty of petty crimes, their mother, boyfriends, etc ad nauseum. I bet it sucks too... but that doesn't give them the power to confiscate the papers of the innocent, invite more intimidating police officers to the scene, nor to arrest a man who is by this point (at the very least) righteously pissed off.
If the guilty are guaranteed the right to choose for themselves between exercising their First Amendment rights and their Fifth Amendment rights, as enhanced by Miranda... then surely this holds true for the innocent as well. And most certainly the innocent who's Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled in his own home, AFTER he's already
voluntarily proven his innocence.
Whether the Police Officer in question is a stand up guy or not; I don't believe for one moment he arrests a 60 year old white professor under those same circumstances. Needless to say, if he did, he would be just as wrong. I do not see compelling evidence that racism was involved and do not believe such an accusation would pass the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I do, however, think it could easily meet the preponderance standard, and would be happy to wager the attorney's for the powers that be agree.
Again: No doubt his rights were violated, and little as to why. My conclusion was based on the former being "stupid", the latter is just my personal opinion as to why the former took place. You'll notice I didn't allege any 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendment violations. (Though I did point out when the 14th was interpreted to provide 4th Amendment protections to States.)
Finn dAbuzz wrote: I may be reading more into your comment than is there, but it seems to me that you are suggesting the latter. Assuming you are right and Sgt Crowley violated Mr. Gates' rights, the reason for him doing so is hardly immaterial, since one possible answer apparently induced the president of the United States to express an opinion on the incident during a nationally broadcasted press conference, and has Prof. Gates enjoying a position on a national soapbox.
Unless you know more than the rest of us about Sgt Crowley, there is no reason to believe that he acted out of racism. In fact, his biographical information to date would suggest the exact opposite.
The same exact situation could easily have happened if Gates was white. The difference is that the loudmouthed white jerk would probably not have used race in his rant, and the story wouldn't have made the national news.
See above. The offense was indeed STUPID. While I
believe race played a factor, it is irrelevant insofar as determining the offense was stupid. That a black man who's rights were trampled chooses to use the incident to promote awareness of a frequent asinine double standard is nothing I'll fault him for. I commend him for it. The fact that he's a
black man getting the apologies for the unconstitutional treatment from law enforcement isn't the only reason this is getting national attention. He is a
prominent black man. Sure, whitey wouldn't get the national attention, but neither do the literally thousands of ordinary black men falling victim to unconstitutionally "stupid" decisions by police officers who may or may not be racist. This same thing happens to less accomplished
black men with a regularity that would turn your stomach if you really stopped to think about it.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Every unfortunate incident that befalls persons of color (even when the police are involved) is not a result of racism and it is nonsensical to reflexively assume it is.
No argument here.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: I can understand why a black person might be particularly sensitive to any story that involves police questioning an innocent black man, but it doesn’t follow that the police are always acting out of racism, and when the facts strongly suggest otherwise it is at least imprudent to maintain the charge.
Once Crowley was convinced Gates was who he claimed to be, he should have just ignored the professor’s stupid rant and left the scene. He didn’t though; he overreacted to a loud mouthed jerk irrespective of the jerk’s color.
Correct, he should have left, but you can no more prove your gut instinct that it was irrespective of race than I can mine that the white man in identical circumstances doesn't get arrested by Crowley (or
anyone else for that matter, I'd wager). This is the part of racism that is nearly impossible to eradicate, and also the part I believe each and every one of us is guilty of to some degree. Not being able to pin-point it, doesn't make the overall effect any less unfair to he who has to endure it, day in and day out.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Doesn’t make him right, but it also doesn’t make this a story that deserves the attention it is getting.
I disagree. For the reasons pointed out in the paragraph above, I think the attention is a good thing that could lead to a greater understanding of the shadowy side effects of racism that are not often even noticed, let alone focused on by those of us not often afflicted by them.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: To some degree, President Obama can be thanked for that.
Fair enough: Thank you President Obama. Can't say I'm thrilled with his performance thus far, but he hit this nail on the head. They did act stupidly.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Originally I didn’t have that much of a problem with Obama commenting on the incident during his press conference, but that was before I saw a clip of his actual comment, and realized that my assumption that the President of the United States would have as much of the facts available before making a comment, was wrong.
It’s clear that Obama didn’t have anything but a superficial understanding of what had happened, and that he wrongly assumed the police had arrested Gates in his house on suspicion of burglary; after Gates had identified himself. With such an obviously limited understanding of the incident, he should have kept his opinion on the police’s behavior to himself.
I'll agree that the leader of the free world should be better informed before addressing the situation, but I don't think it's terribly relevant whether the cop arrested him for a crime that didn't happen or a disturbance that he didn't create. Either way, it would have been stupid.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:He could easily have made his point that there is a valid reason for blacks to be sensitive about interaction with the police that still needs to be fully addressed, without asserting (despite all of the hollow qualifiers) that this was a case of such behavior.
Hollow qualifiers? I don't think so. I have no reason to believe Crowley is any more racist than your average Joe... but I think that's the underlying point. One need not wear white sheets and white hoods to be exta afraid of the black man, or to more easily believe he is guilty of something, or less qualified for... etc. ad naseum... but these more subtle, less provable aspects of racism are no less offensive to he who endures it, and I'd wager I'd be pretty damn sensitive to them myself.
Similiarly, I've recently learned just how put off people can be by gender specific allocations, and responded with a conscious effort to police my use of them. Had this subject not come up in conversation, I wouldn't have even thought to look for my error. Hell, I practically worship women, but my demeanor has not always reflected this truth. Awareness is a good thing.
In this case, you have a prominent man who literally had his constitutional rights trampled... and to whatever degree that can be exploited to highlight the ugly reality of day to day unnoticed by the majority double standards, for the edification of us all, I'm all for it.
