Print
Email
Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge, Mass. after a white female passerby thought he was breaking into his own house and called police.
UPDATE: The disorderly conduct charges against Henry Louis Gates Jr. were dropped on Tuesday.
Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- by Charles Ogletree
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
Dayo Olopade interviews Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Lawrence Bobo asks what do you call a black man with a Ph.D.?
Karen Grigsby Bates on when apologies aren't enough.
Comments
You get it! But that's not surprising. You're presumably a lawyer. I began to notice a disturbing trend way back during the O.J. trial. Yep, it surrounded the testimony of one Mark Furhman. Ironically, what I'm about to say next may surprise you. After he was caught lying - committing perjury in a capital case - he was put back on the stand by F. Lee Bailey. What he said sent chills down my spine. His use of the "N" word and bragging about practicing his Karate kicks on Black suspects while offensive, was par for course. We've come to expect that type of behavior out of white police officers. Sad but true.
What he said that sent chills down my spine was this: When asked a question he said, "I want to exercise my 5th Amendment privileges." Think about that for a moment. Well, not you. I'm sure you get it. But what he did on the witness stand was change a right to a privilege. A right is something everyone is born with. A privilege is granted and may be taken away. This I believe strikes at the core of the problem. People these days have no concept of what Constitutionally protected rights are and what it means to have them. We've become convinced that what we have are privileges that may be taken away by any minion of the State or Government. Rights are worth dying for. Once you lose them they can never if ever be recovered. Certainly not without the bloodshed that was necessary to get them in the first place.
Professor Gates was in his own home minding his own business. He had committed no crime and had not called the Police. When Crowley showed up he should have had enough sense to assess the situation and withdraw. What he knew was that there were not two Black males on the scene. The owner of the house was present. He had been present in his home for some indeterminate period of time and hadn't been attacked by some theoretical threat lurking on the premises. Even if there were some threat hiding in a closet waiting to leap out, If Dr. Gates did not request that Crowley come in and search his home, Crowley was legally bound to leave. The 4th Amendment is quite clear on this.
Let's change the scenario slightly. Suppose someone had called in a report of a raging house fire at Dr. Gates' address. Two or three firetrucks roll with support vehicles and ambulances. When the fire department arrives on scene, they observe no raging fire. They come up to the door with their fire axes in hand and observe Dr. Gates sitting in his home enjoying a cup of coffee. He comes to the door and tells them there is no fire there and that he didn't call them. Do the firemen, for Dr. Gates safety proceed to use their fire axes to chop holes in the walls to make sure there is no electrical fire smoldering? We can never be too safe can we? Of course they don't. The firemen would leave and report a false alarm. Nobody would have been the worse for it. Certainly not Dr. Gates. Firemen are public servants the same as Cops. The difference is, they truly serve the public. You hardly ever hear of complaints about firemen. When they show up they actually provide a service and make the situation better by the time they leave.
I am shocked at the number of people that think it's ok for a police officer to arrest someone for being disrespectful or rude. Irrespective of what Gates said to piss off the police officer, there was no reason to arrest him. He is not being charged with intimidation or assault, so he obviously didn't threaten the police officer. Has everyone forgotten completely that we have the First Amendment Right to Free Speech. Speaking out against the police is political speech, which is safeguarded by the United States Constitution. I'm beginning to believe that the Bush administration had control for way too long, such that now people are beginning to actually believe that we should give up our freedoms in order to be more "secure." In my mind, uncontrolled police power is the opposite of being secure. I am appalled that the President felt that he had to pull back from his statement that the police acted stupidly, because it's exactly what they did. They acted ignorantly. I am a white female professional with a much less distinguished career than Prof. Gates, and I guarantee I would not have been arrested by that officer for acting and speaking in the exact same manner (maybe even worse) than Gates did. I grew up witnessing racial and socioeconomic profiling on a daily basis by the police and others, and it has not stopped since then. I like to hope that it will get better, but by teaching our children that the actions of people like Officer Crowley were ok, and that he should not be punished for falsely arresting the professor, we are not setting a very good example. Thank you.
I am shocked at the number of people that think it's ok for a police officer to arrest someone for being disrespectful or rude. Irrespective of what Gates said to piss off the police officer, there was no reason to arrest him. He is not being charged with intimidation or assault, so he obviously didn't threaten the police officer. Has everyone forgotten completely that we have the First Amendment Right to Free Speech. Speaking out against the police is political speech, which is safeguarded by the United States Constitution. I'm beginning to believe that the Bush administration had control for way too long, such that now people are beginning to actually believe that we should give up our freedoms in order to be more "secure." In my mind, uncontrolled police power is the opposite of being secure. I am appalled that the President felt that he had to pull back from his statement that the police acted stupidly, because it's exactly what they did. They acted ignorantly. I am a white female professional with a much less distinguished career than Prof. Gates, and I guarantee I would not have been arrested by that officer for acting and speaking in the exact same manner (maybe even worse) than Gates did. I grew up witnessing racial and socioeconomic profiling on a daily basis by the police and others, and it has not stopped since then. I like to hope that it will get better, but by teaching our children that the actions of people like Officer Crowley were ok, and that he should not be punished for falsely arresting the professor, we are not setting a very good example. Thank you.
You don't let Jehovah's in your home? I try to stop them before they get to my driveway. LOL It usually goes something like this: " Jehovah?"...."Yes"...."Not interested"....." Okay, but would you like a copy of"...."Not interested!!!". I think we're probably on opposite ends of the scale with the trust issue. I can certainly respect your opinion and level of distrust for police and others. As far as what makes a racist, my idea of a racist is probably much different from yours as well. Neither of us may be right or wrong. When i'm in the city, the moment I lock my doors at a stop light because there's a group of black or hispanic kids on a corner near me, it's racism. I realize that. I used to do that a lot. Actually I mentioned doing that to one of my hispanic friends and he quipped, " I do that sh*t too, these kids today scare the crap out of me". Being a C.O. has helped with much of that. You learn quick that you can't play favorites and you can't be all high and mighty on a power trip. Most guys just respect being respected. Anyway, I think of a racist as someone who is more radical in his dislike of other races. (ie...KKK, Arian Nation etc...). Which is probably too specific. I don't want to hold any race down. I think the best man should get job regardless of color, creed or s.o. I also know that in this country that doesn't always happen. In fact it probably rarely happens. Though I think there's a lot more reason for that than just race. In regards to this case, I feel both men should have approached this situation with a little more discretion. You feel that it was solely the cop's responsibility to perhaps do that. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue. It's been fun chatting (or arguing) with you. Though a bit laborious at times. lol Good Luck,
Yep! My position on this matter would be exactly the same if Dr. Gates were white and the arresting officer were black. I'd even take this position if Dr. Gates were white, flying the "stars and bars" in his yard and called the officer the "N" word when he wouldn't leave. As Ripley said, "believe it or not."
If you don't think you're a racist, good for you. That's a step in the right direction. Now work to live up to your expectations. Most people are racists. I'm a racist. I know it and I work on it daily. I refuse to be bigoted. I view people's homes as sacrosanct, especially from the Government and it's minions. I don't let police into my home - of any stripe - unless I've called them. I'm the same way with the Fire Department and the EMS services. Hell, I don't even let Jehovah's Witnesses into my home.
The whole notion that Dr. Gates ought to have been cooperative or deferential to Crowley offends me mightily. Anyone who thinks that a Harvard professor, 58 years old, walking with a cane says something like "yo mama" is either an @$$ or masquerading as one. Clearly Crowley was projecting on to Dr. Gates a manner of speaking that he assumed all Black people use. That is racism. Crowley provoked Dr. Gates in his own home and then lured him outside to arrest him after he knew who he was and that no crime had been committed. That is a false arrest. Crowley needs to be fired. Plain and simple.
So now, the police report and 9-1-1 audio tapes don't match. Sadly, too many who blog here (including one lawyer) assume that the police version of events (or even Mr. Gate's statements and actions) is precisely what happened and was said by all parties (and now the 9-1-1- audio tapes of a hearsay witness stating "I don't know what's happening ..." — contradicting key parts of the police report). I can't simplify any further the Constitutional point given at the top, middle, bottom, and the root of my observations in previous blogs.
TOTALLY missing or purposely ignoring the real issue in this incident won't change the illegalities in this case. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and don't pretend to be. However, after consulting with those who are, and closely reviewing what was learned in school, I clearly and objectively understand the U.S. Constitution (4th Amendment) regarding my own rights locally and beyond — simply as an informed and educated American.
Violation of anyone's Constitutional rights — regardless of race or socioeconomic status — is the paramount issue here, even if the Black Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. was handcuffed and arrested by a Black or Hispanic or Martian American police officer with a NAACP membership card. A beer and handshakes at a White House occupied by an African American President of the United States does not negate or obscure the requirements and purpose of the U.S. Constitution that applies to every American, including police officers and public officials.
Pressing the easy button to obtain an arrest, and hyping circumstances in a report to justify an arrest and establish a police record — which will be forever referenced if Mr. Gates has future police encounters — is not what's prescribed as the core duties of a public servant authorized to serve, protect and respect citizens. Police departments and unions that affirm these aberrant actions only make it difficult, and at times more dangerous, to be truly effective in the communities they serve. Many citizens soon see most police as probable suspects rather than public servants. In some communities, the "no snitch" rule didn't come from a natural inclination to not trust the very police most citizens prefer to rely on for their public safety. Police officers would be greatly empowered when genuine trust and mutual respect exists.
Even if the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) — as related to false arrest, false imprisonment, noncompliance with procedural rules, and false official statements — was applied to civil servant police officers, several policemen in the Gates case would already be held liable and demoted or dismissed from duty. However, how many police unions would support a similar concept that's proven to give greater integrity and trust in the soldiers of our military.
Does anyone recall when was the first or last time a police union or police chief publicly and fully supported a citizen whose rights were violated by a member? Can anyone remember when the police or local government had to be sued to correct itself? Surely, a real "teachable moment" may be best effective after a civil lawsuit is filed based on the U.S. Constitution.
Apologies, race, egos and a happy hour of beer at the White House aside, this is really about a citizen's rights under the laws of the Constitution — despite the media hype and slant of this incident to pump-up emotions and generate ratings to prolong the news cycle on racism.
No point in playing the race card when a hefty civil lawsuit can best modify behavior and actions. As it was with the Montgomery bus boycott in the 1950s — to not patronizing businesses, organizations and institutions that discriminate or act irresponsibly ("STUPIDLY") in the 21st century — money talks.
The renown Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. has an opportunity to send a major message and have a genuine "teachable moment." Surely, it would be easy and absolutely wrong to broad-brush any local police precinct or an entire police department. What will be most effective for professor Gates to do is to file a civil lawsuit for damages against the individual police officer (not the department or city) initially engaged in this incident. Gates has the time, legal resources, credibility and overwhelming public integrity to do so.
Strategically and politically, the department and city will be motivated to quietly kick the individual wrongdoers to the curb so as not to be embroiled in the liabilities and bad public relations that will come their way. Unless the individual officers actions are official and condoned policy, the department or city should not be penalized for any rogue or independent actions by an individual officer.
Every step and action the arresting officers took after identifying the actual owner, if all that the news reports and Gates' attorney alleges is true, was a clear violation of Mr. Gates and his property under the Constitution, Bill of Rights and sections of U.S. civil rights law. Race and/or alleged racial profiling is just the subtext. Violation of anyone's Constitutional rights is the paramount issue, even if Dr. Gates was handcuffed and arrested by a Black police officer.
As it would be for the rest of us, make the officers understand the real dollar and career price for their personal decisions, and their lack of genuine professional discretion. Expose and sue these individuals as aberrations operating under the guise of a police department and city that does not condone or cover for officers that violate citizen rights — even if it's done in "calm" passive-aggressive manner. This will give more credibility to the majority of law enforcement officers that genuinely protect our public safety without deviation from either their professionalism or mandated respect for the public.
If all the actual facts are affirmed, clearly certain officers acted as individuals rather than public servants — sanctioned and paid by the public to serve, protect and respect. Too often we forget that public safety policing is NOT a private, personal or union-sanctioned enterprise invested with unlimited authority that comes from beyond — a concept that plagues rights and freedom in other nations.
For those with far less clout than a popular Harvard professor — hopefully, but perhaps not likely, after a round of beers at the White House — Dr. Gates should still do the right thing for the Bill of Rights.
Dennis Moore — Publisher — http://www.POTUSworld.com — ppceo@potusworld.com
http://www.potusworld.com/Page_Two.html#RacePoliceAndTheConstitution
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
FULL 9-1-1 SIX-MINUTE POLICE AUDIOS:
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_audioPlayer08.html?audio...
3-PAGE POLICE REPORT:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
ANALYSIS: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0728/p02s04-usgn.html
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/why-henry-louis-gates-shoul...
LEGALITIES OF ARREST & THE FOURTH AMENDMENT:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-an...
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-an...
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1451/Justification-Law-Enforcement-Arrest-att...
The United States Constitution — Bill of Rights — Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - FOURTH AMENDMENT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const...
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REGARDING ARRESTS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCMJ
President Obama Videos On Gates:
http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?src=60days/whpb072409.flv&s=0&e=0&live...
http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?src=60days/wh072209_obama.flv&s=0&e=0&...
My Goodness Jian... You are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black (that's not a meant to be a racial thing). You said the dispatcher said "2 black males"... The dispatcher said " race unknown, one may be hispanic...." (I HEARD THE DAMN TAPES TOO!!!!) because that's what the 911 caller said also. You call me a liar!! No more than you pal. As for making assumptions about you...You need to go back and reread my early blogs. I was throwing those assumptions back at you because that's what you did to me when you called me a racist. Because I used the term "You People". In fairness to you, I would like to apologize for using that term. I didn't realize what this site was when I first came on to it. I googled "Gates Case" and this site popped up. I did no background check nor did I look for a "history" or "about" thingy to click on. I just started reading blogs and writing some myself. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. I am willing to admit that jumping onto a site called "The Root" should've rang a bell that the majority of the people on this site were likely to be black but it didn't. If you were truly offended by my phrasing of the words "You People" then I apologize....sincerely. It was never my intention to address any race of people that way. I understand why you would take offense. But this is a perfect example of a misunderstanding turning into something it wasn't ever meant to be...(this seems to be familiar?). I was offended to be called a racist, so I through an assumption back in your face. It didn't surprise me that you had a "white" grandmother. But i'm not sure your argument of living with a white woman that you were related to holds the same amount of water as my willingness to open my home to a young black man that I had only known for a little over year. I know you'll attack me for that statement as you do on everything I say....but whatever. If it makes you feel better...go ahead and rip me. Do the old " I had a black friend so i'm not a racist shtick"....mock away buddy!! That was never my point. We all have our little prejudices...you do, I do. I've taken a little gulp at an ATM in the past, when a black guy came up behind me to use it. Then kicked myself after I walked away for having that "is he gonna rob me" thought creep in to my mind. Does that make me a cross burning racist? In your eyes probably. Maybe our opinions on what makes someone a racist are different, and honestly, I don't think i have the energy to debate anybody on that issue. As far as this dangerous job issue...You were extolling the virtues on how easy it was to be a cop and how many perks there were. I simply pointed out that cops get killed in that job. I feel it's a thankless job. If being a court investigator gives you some sort of license or special insight to know what a cop's job is really like then so be it. Anyway, then you fired back with the truck driver comment. I wasn't trying to debate you on who's job is more dangerous. That's why I said what's your point. Besides we had a cop in my town who had to shoot an armed suspect that was attempting to take a hostage. He left the force even though it was a clean shooting....killing someone carries it's own weight. I don't feel cops have it as easy as you do...my opinion...i'm entitled to it. You mocked me when I told you about some of my own run-ins with the police. You misinterpreted what I said and turned it into " You see, I can relate to the black man because of my own experience.....I have street cred". When what I was saying was....I have no love for the police, I've had negative experiences with the police, I'm not blindly supporting the police because they're police. That's what I was trying to convey when I told you those experiences. You say you'd have the same level of support if Gates were white. What if the cop was black? What if Crowley isn't a racist? What if he's just an a@@hole? There's plenty of those on the force. I've never come out and said Crowley was without fault. If you look at almost all of my blogs, I say I feel they were both at fault. I also don't ever remember saying that Gates was tired, but i'll have to review my previous blogs. Neither guy wanted to swallow sh*t from the other. That's also my opinion. You have no more fact than I do. You form your opinions off the same information I do. You've been far more insulting towards me than I have of you. And you never knew who you were talking to this whole time.....I'm a C.O.!!!!!! I've never been shot at, but that's because we don't let inmates have guns. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be a police when i'm not. I'm a glorified babysitter. Only the babies have shivs and rub sh*t on themselves before a cell extraction!! Fun Fun!! LOL
.... intelligent, well thought out, reasonable and rational synopsis.
It seems your mendacity knows no bounds! Multiple police reports??? By whom? There is only one police report, the one filed by Officer Crowley. Incorporated into that report is the statement of one backup officer. What you've been reading are blogs from police apologist. The Cambridge Police Department just released - count them - two audio tapes this morning. The first is the actual 911 call and the second is the audio from Crowley's radio transmissions during the incident.
Both tapes prove racism! I'll say that again. Both tapes prove racism! In the actual 911 call, the caller doesn't mention the race of the men she is observing trying to get into Dr. Gates' residence. However, the dispatcher puts it out as "two Black Males." Why?
In the second audio tape of Officer Crowley's radio transmissions during the incident, you can hear Dr. Gates talking in the background. He doesn't appear to be either yelling or screaming. In fact, his audio levels are so low, you can't make out what he's saying. This directly contradicts Crowley's assertion that Dr. Gates was screaming so loudly that the acoustics in the foyer made it difficult for Dr. Gate to hear his instructions or for him to use his radio. You also hear Crowley instruct the dispatcher to keep more backup units coming. This was after he had ascertained the identity of Dr. Gates. Thus, he had already made up his mind to arrest him prior to his inducing Dr. Gates to step outside. These are the facts. I know facts can be such devilish things, but you'll have to deal with them anyway.
Quote:
"The fact the you became offended when you read the words "You People" because you automatically jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to black people is the whole reason our argument began."
This is a Black issues focused forum on a Black issues focused website. Most of the people reading and posting to this forum are Black. That notwithstanding, and particularly with regard to this Gates incident, we have had a lot of visitors of other races mostly white. While some of the white people contributing to this discussion have been virulently racist in their views and excessively caustic in their delivery, there have been many who have been most reasonable in their discussion of this matter. A good many of them actually agree with your point of view and not mine. Some are in agreement with my position on this issue. Given the diversity of opinion in this one single thread, your "you people" remark was inane and inappropriate unless you were singling out a group of people based on something other than their diversity of opinion. Yes, we people do speak and understand white code words.
Quote:
"Yeah and more fisherman probably die every year than cops do too, what's your point. If it's so easy and there's so many perks to the job....go be one yourself!!!"
You were attempting to make the point about how dangerous it is to be a Cop. Not me. Have you been taking your meds??? The funny thing about these forums is, you never know whom you're talking to or who is reading your posts. You assumed I had no experience with police or doing police work. You assumed wrong. The paucity of your life's experience has nothing to do with me. However, when you hold your meager experiences up as proof of knowledge, you should expect them to be scrutinized. Now that they've been found wanting, you're becoming rabid. Wipe the spittle from around your mouth and do try not to bite yourself.
Let's look at the facts:
1.) You began this discussion by with the assumption that Dr. Gates was tired from his trip and was verbally abusive to Officer Crowley without provocation. You did not take into consideration what Officer Crowley's demeanor may have been. You simply assumed that Officer Crowley's conduct was that of a professional. Why? There is just as much reason to believe that Officer Crowley was being a "jerk" as there is to believe that Dr. Gates was being a "jerk."
2.) You seem unable to grasp the concept that anyone regardless of race, creed or color not only has no duty to allow a police officer without a warrant into their home, but in fact has a Constitutional right to forbid, prevent, constrain and confound them from doing so. When Crowley ascertained that Dr. Gates lived at that address. He should have left immediately. Dr. Gates' demeanor, behavior, attitude is a moot point. If I enter your home uninvited and you shoot me, before we ever get to the question of whether or not you should or should not have shot me, the question of my being there will be explored. If I came to the wrong address and you told me I was at the wrong address and I then refused to leave, you would be well within your rights and the law to take whatever actions you saw fit up to and including shooting me. The law doesn't change simply because I'm wearing a uniform. If I'm given leniency because of that, it's because you're extending a courtesy to me.
3.) You've repeatedly misrepresented the facts of this case. Your description of events do not match either the police report - which as been proven defective by the release of the audio tapes - or the photographs of the event. You're making this up as you go along.
4.) You have repeatedly made personal assumptions regarding myself that have no basis in fact. To wit: I've never had a white person live with me. Oops! Turns out I had a white grandmother. I have no idea of what Police do. Oops! Turns out I've worked with them. A court investigator is an officer of the court and indeed a Law Enforcement officer. This doesn't include my work for the FBI.
5.) You made the point that being a Police Officer is a dangerous job. I pointed out that more truck drivers are killed in the line of duty every year than police officers. Suddenly you want to know what my point is? Do you live life in a constant state of confusion or what? While we're at it, I have been shot at in the line of duty. Have you?
What apparently sticks in your craw is that a Black man had the temerity to stand up in his own home and on his own property and talk back to a white cop. And that my friend is racism! By the way, my position on this matter would be exactly the same if Dr. Gates was white.
Since there seem to be people here from both ends of the spectrum with heels dug in, doing this inflexible thing...may I just raise a comment from the middle?
Before anyone makes any assumptions about me, I am white, my husband is black, and my children and grandchildren, (like the president), all self-identify as black Americans. Like any mother, what effects my husband and children effects me. I have seen REAL racial profiling in action over my lifetime, when it happened to members of my own family. I'm afraid however, it looked nothing like what happened with Prof. Gates.
My husband is a middle-aged, polished professional as well, so when I read this story, I couldn't help but to imagine him in the same scenario (policeman at the door, investigating a call of B & E) and ask- how would my husband have handled this?
I can tell you, because he is a man of exteme confidence, he would have laughed and said oh man, that was me. I just got home from a trip and my lock is broken. I had to knock in my front door to get in. (Can you show me some ID that shows you are the homeowner?) Sure, come on in. Wow, you guys are fast...blah blah..thanks officer. Bye.
That's all, no need for an argument. The cop is just doing his job.
This lawyer's statement implies that Prof. Gates was pleasant and cooperative and went to get his ID to show the officer.(the officer says the Prof. initially refused to show Id)
Ok. It doesn't say there was any sort of negative exchange, so how do we jump from THAT to Prof. Gates immediately demanding the officers name and badge number?
It's odd. It doesn't make sense. Yes, yes, of course it's his "right" to do so, but it's an odd response to a pretty basic request. Unless of course the person is spoiling for a fight. I'm sorry, but I'm just being honest here.
When asked about this, the officer said he identified himself at least 3 times to Prof. Gates, but said that each time he answered, Prof. Gates began hollering again and would not listen for the answer. We've all watched Cops. How many times will a policeman keep repeating himself to an irate person that's not listening? Not too many.
Then, according to the lawyer's statement the only words exchanged were Prof. Gates repeatedly asking for a name and badge number, and then being placed under arrest. A + B does NOT equal C in this equation at all. A LOT is being left out here I suspect. I think most people reading this would agree, though some are choosing to "ignore" any part Prof, Gates may have played in creating his own situation. Truth is truth, you can't just take the parts you like and ignore the rest.
Prof. Gates does not state that the officer says or does ANYTHING out of line to him, or does anything but ask for ID, following him to the kitchen to get it when the Prof. refuses to talk on the porch. Where is the ROGUE COP in all this? I'm still not seeing it,
As for the black policeman outside, Prof. Gates said in an interview that this officer "MUST have been embarrassed to be there" and "He was my only hope on THAT porch" referring to the white police officers. Yet this "embarrassed" policeman said that he suported the arresting officer, and said that Prof. Gates stood on the porch yelling "See, a white woman calls 911 and you come and arrest the black man!" Perhaps it wasn't his fellow officers he was embarrassed of Prof. Gates.....
The woman who called 911 that so many villified as "the white woman that saw 2 black men and immediately thought it was a burglary" has now been vindicated. They released the tapes and she never even MENTIONED race when she called. She just said 2 men, and more, she said she wasn't even sure it was a break in, said they might live there and were having trouble with their key! But do you see how quickly so many of you jumped to conclusions? "Oh, she MUST be a bigot, that's why she called 911." Can you admit that it's possible that Prof. Gates jumped to some conclusions himself?
Bottom line, there was really no reason for Prof. Gates to immediately become angry when the officer arrived. Sure, it's his "right" to act like an obnoxious so-and-so in his own home if he wishes, was was it really NECESSARY?
The cop HAD to verify who Prof. Gates was, but ALSO be sure there weren't a couple of burglars the Prof. didn't know about hiding in the house. How do you do your job when the homeowner won't cooperate, and gives answers like- "That's none of your damn business?" Has anyone considered that this same officer, if there HAD been a burglary, could have very easily taken a bullet protecting Prof. Gates home?
Look, I'm not saying it was necessary to arrest the man, and the officer probably COULD have walked away with his tail between his legs with the Prof. yelling "racist" at him from the doorway...sure he could have. But the thing is, he didn't have to. Face it, the police are paid to protect us, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to take our nonsense. I think the Prof.'s ego got the best of him, and once he saw he was going to be treated like anyone else, he cried "racial profiling" to cover his embarrassment. His version just makes NO sense.