

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment" - splat
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html

======
jmillikin
There were several inconsistencies between the official police report[1], and
the original 911 caller, Lucia Whalen's, version of events[2]. Notably:

* The police report states that Whalen said "two black men". In reality, Whalen said "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all.". The "black" aspect was entirely invented after-the-fact by the police.

* The police report states the responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, spoke to the Whalen at the scene. According to Whalen, this conversation did not occur.

* Crowley claims that Gates was belligerent and yelling racial epithets. However, Gates had returned from China with a bronchial infection[3], and was unable to yell or raise his voice. This has been confirmed by his physician.

* Gates showed Crowley two forms of identification, his driver's license and Harvard ID. He did not refuse to show identification.

* Gates was arrested on his front doorstep, after following Crowley out of the house. Gates claims this is because he demanded to see Crowley's identification, which he is allowed by law.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion and misinformation being spread
regarding the event.

[1]
[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_L...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_LNOTESMAIL_07202009-153909.PDF)

[2] <http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/>

[3] <http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0>

~~~
SamAtt
(Note: The above comment was at '1' when I made this reply. So at least 4
people simply don't care that the info given above is a flat out lie as is
shown by the actual report that I link to below)

Just pointing out what I did above.

* The police report never says the officer heard the 911 call ([http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html))

* The conversation is one's word against the other and Whalen is clearly trying to distance herself from the whole incident so she has the more reason to lie

* That's just silly. I had a bronchial infection and I could still yell (albeit with vastly less capacity)

* The report doesn't claim Gates refused to show ID only that he initially did. In fact it says...

. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify
that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC.
Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did
supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that
Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the
Harvard University Police.

* Your last claim could be right. No one can tell. But it's at the root of the two claims so the only way you can believe it's a proven fabrication is if you believe Gates without question (since he has as little proof as Crowley does as to what happened)

------
cmars232
The best way to assert your rights to a police officer is to be calm, polite,
and firm. Remove emotion from the equation, and you'll come across credible.
Get all worked up, and you fit the pattern of an unstable, dangerous
individual that will probably need to be subdued.

Keep in mind you can also decline a search or ask a questions like "do you
have probable cause", "am I being detained", etc without being a jerk. Taking
the high road costs nothing, might avoid a lot of trouble, and might even
teach a police officer that not everyone who believes in their civil liberties
is a ranting-and-raving asshole.

~~~
pmorici
I think this an excellent point that gets lost in all of this. Anyone who is a
jerk to the police has to expect to possibly be arrested. If Gates or anyone
for that matter has a problem with the way a police office conducts themselves
it's imperative that you maintain the moral high ground by above all not being
a jack ass and asserting your rights politely.

When it comes out after the fact (in this case by Gate's own admission) that
you've said some not nice things to the officer you really loose a _huge_
amount of credibility no matter how right you are. Not to say that you should
let a police officer who is acting inappropriately trample all over you but
there is a right way and a wrong way to assert yourself and yelling and
insults is not the right way.

~~~
dantheman
The point is that you should not have to expect the possibility of arrest for
being a jerk. Of course you should act in a respectable way, but failure to do
should not result in arrest.

~~~
pmorici
In a utopian world. I'm not saying that's the way I'd like it to be. I'm
saying, as things are, it's something every reasonable person knows is likely
to happen if you're belligerent with authorities.

------
tokenadult
"'Contempt of cop,' as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it
shouldn't be."

I remember the day the professor of criminal law and criminal procedure law in
my law school told the second-year students, "In actual practice, contempt of
cop is a crime," meaning that if you piss off a police officer, you can expect
trouble to follow.

After edit:

The lesson I take from that in my daily life is what mattmaroon says in his
reply,

 _There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being
verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is
generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if
someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced
really._

Yes. I'm sensible enough not to get into an argument with an armed man who has
legal authority to use his weapon. Maybe there is some misunderstanding when a
police officer stops me (that happens very rarely in my life), but if there
is, I can stay calm and explain my point of view without looking or sounding
threatening. I've not had any trouble with police officers, ever.

------
credo
I agree and I think that too many people have turned this into a "race" issue.

My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to
Officer Crowley's actions. I also think that the office was wrong in arresting
Professor Gates for being rude to him.

~~~
mynameishere
Gates made it a race issue; Obama backed him up on the matter; the media
agree.

The cop was doing what cops always do. The solitary difference is that he came
up against a professional racist.

~~~
dantheman
The argument is that "what cops always do" is wrong, and that race played no
part.

~~~
nanijoe
The real issue here is that race often plays a part in "what cops always do"

------
mattmaroon
There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being
verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is
generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if
someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced
really.

Cops have a dangerous job and a lot of bullets are preceded by yelling. They
actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because
who knows where it might go from there.

The iPod dancing wierdos getting arrested is a total ad-hominem too.

~~~
gnaritas
> They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool,
> because who knows where it might go from there.

No they shouldn't, preventative arrest is wrong and crosses a line that should
not be crossed. If you can't handle angry citizens then you have no business
being a cop. The day we can be arrested for merely speaking out against the
government is a day we should not allow to ever come.

I was a cop, I put up with plenty of verbal abuse from people, it's part of
the job. A cops safety is not more important that citizens rights.

~~~
mattmaroon
There's a big difference between speaking out against the government and
yelling at a cop (or anyone for that matter).

------
rfreytag
The "Right to Record" should be a civil right trumping all others.

------
lionhearted
The article misses two really important points.

1\. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a
dangerous line of work. Ability to dissent from police is good - abusing
police really, really isn't. The vast majority of police are really nice
people, and will work with you and help you on a wide range of things. Like in
other professions, some cops suck or are incompetent to varying degrees, but
most are pretty good sorts. The officer's report from the Gates incident had
Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his
home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in
the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere.

2\. The article did gloss over it, but yes, it is really impractical to get
hostile to anyone that has power over you - even including the electric
company. People are people - you remember the last time someone was seriously
a jerk to you? Remember how you felt? Now, do you remember the last time it
happened in relation to your work? Would you say you worked harder to please
that person afterwards, or would you say you held at least a bit of an "F you"
attitude? That's just a practical point. Police officers are people. They
undergo training to react more sensibly and less emotionally, but they're
going to react way more friendly and cooperative with people who are friendly
and cooperative with them. Yeah, sure, it _shouldn't_ be like that. I guess
technically an employee at the electric company should work doubletime to get
your power back on even if you're cursing and raising your voice at them and
calling them names. But the world doesn't work like that.

So many places like to list every police misconduct incident in the last xyz
years every time something happens. They don't mark down or just pay lip
service to all the lives saved, and all the officers killed in the line of
duty doing good work. Police and citizens are fundamentally "on the same team"
- less tension and more respect between both groups would be a good thing.
Articles that go hard to one side don't promote that.

~~~
lionhearted
Would some of the people who anonymously downvoted care to explain why?

When I was a teenager, I had some anti-police/anti-law angst like a lot of
people in free countries feel and express. After traveling, and seeing how
police operate in the second and third world, I can confidently say we have
some pretty outstanding officers in the United States. A good friend's father
is a policeman as well, so I've gotten to hear a few stories of how policework
goes.

Here's the points I made:

Point #1: Abusing police is not okay, gets in the way of their work, and at
some point, is no longer protected speech but instead a crime. I don't know
where that line is, but it's somewhere.

Point #2: Being rude and insulting to any people with power over you is likely
a bad play, and they'll probably make your life harder.

Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but
really doesn't give much respect to the _vast majority of officers_ who are
doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing.

I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees philosophically or
factually, and hopefully I'll learn something.

~~~
emmett
1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two.
Saying "Leave me alone, you useless pigs" is not interfering with police
business; it's hard to imagine an example use of speech that would be.

2: That's true, but the whole point of the article is that even though it
might be _inconvenient_ to you to challenge the police when they abuse their
power, it is still an abuse of power. This whole question is specifically
addressed in the article.

3: This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power. That's
a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the police
who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether the
article's argument is true.

In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article completely.
Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially contradiction by
assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses discussed in the
article could ever be considered interference with police work). So that's a
very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted down.

~~~
lionhearted
Thank you for the reply, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping
we might have.

> 1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the
> two.

I was trying not to. In the original comment, I wrote, "I don't know at what
point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but
there is that point somewhere." I'm not sure where the line is, and I'm not
making a judgment call on Gates' arrest. I did mention the officer wrote in
his report (which may be false or falsified - I don't know) that Gates
followed him into the streets yelling at him. At some point, a person doing
that is crossing a line from protected speech into interfering with police
work. Again, _I don't know where that line is_ \- it's a particularly sticky
subject. Police should probably err on the side of letting people air their
thoughts in the form they choose.

> 2\. ... This whole question is specifically addressed in the article.

Very briefly - and I get worried that some young person here, who is really
idealistic, gets into trouble by asserting their rights to an officer while in
college or whatever. For my part, I can't stand customs officials who go over
the line and search me repeatedly and generally waste my time, but I'm
extremely friendly and respectful and talk about the local sports even though
I can't stand that scum. Y'know why? Because they'll mess with you if not. My
part of the comment isn't an apology for bad policework, it's a practical note
so people whipped into a frenzy don't get into trouble. [Also note - the two
times I mouthed off to customs officials, I got an arduous, detailed search
afterwards. I learned that real life lesson the hard way]

> 3\. This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power.
> That's a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the
> police who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether
> the article's argument is true.

Right! Systematic - that means happening all over the place. I don't think it
is - the article points out a few brutal abuses of police power and doesn't
give statistics for how common it is or put it in context of other nations.
Our officers in the USA are pretty good. I'm a big rights guy - very big - but
implying there's a huge problem when in fact it's a few isolated incidents
would be a bad thing. Or who knows - maybe there is a systemic problem, but
the article just has a few anecdotes and no statistics. And certainly, all of
those anecdotes and no statistics are hostile.

> In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article
> completely. Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially
> contradiction by assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses
> discussed in the article could ever be considered interference with police
> work). So that's a very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted
> down.

Well, I'm voting you up for taking the time to respond. Thank you for the
discussion, and I look forward to more whenever you please.

~~~
xiaoma
> _"Systematic - that means happening all over the place. I don't think it is
> - the article points out a few brutal abuses of police power and doesn't
> give statistics for how common it is or put it in context of other
> nations."_

Amnesty international does that.

<http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/page.do?id=1011100>

This article was focused on the issue of how little most Americans care about
the excessive powers granted to their police. Your own reaction only serves to
emphasize the point.

If you really don't see anything wrong with having the largest prisoner
population in the world (beating out Russia and China both in absolute and per
capita terms) the second highest rate of executions, hundreds of people being
tased to death by officers, officers being able to arrest people in their own
homes for exercising their rights, and widespread surveillance on citizens
without warrants, then reason.com may not be the site for you.

~~~
bokonist
_If you really don't see anything wrong with having the largest prisoner
population in the world_

The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European
countries. More criminals means more people in prison.

The American legal system is like the bad parent who alternates between being
over-lenient and being violently strict. Much of the time policing is actually
far too lax. Most people selling drugs are never caught, most gang killings
are never tracked down, and most home burglars are never captured. This lax
policing allows too much crime, and eventually the police are forced to react.
They do so in a blunt and ham-fisted manner. Cops break into the wrong homes
in an attempt to make headline grabbing drug busts.

Think of it in terms of math: which has a higher prisoner population, the
country that catches the perpetrator of 98% of crimes, or the country that
catches perpertrators only 10% of the time? The answer is the second country
has a much higher criminal population. The lower probability of getting caught
increases the amount of crime, which means total jail population is much
higher.

Asian countries like Singapore and China on the other hand are the
consistently stern parent. In Singapore there is a 99% chance of getting
caught if you murdered someone. Thus there are virtually no murders, and a
very small prisoner population.

Both sides of the law and order debate need to realize that American law
enforcement is simultaneously _too tax and too heavy handed_. This is not a
contradiction, its the reality.

Many American cities (Philadelphia, Baltimore) have homicide rates that have
been unseen in Western civilization since medieval times. This is a huge
problem. It needs to be addressed. Any proposed reform that tries to lower
police abuse without also lowering the crime rate will result in failure ( and
by increasing crime, will in the long term actually increase police abuses).

~~~
gnaritas
> The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European
> countries. More criminals means more people in prison.

That's a natural result of outlawing so much victim-less behavior. If for
example, drugs were legal, much of that crime would simply disappear and our
prisons would be much less crowded.

~~~
bokonist
Neither Singapore nor China allows drugs, yet their crime rate is much lower
and their prisons much less crowded. Most European countries also outlaw
drugs.

~~~
xiaoma
They don't have a "war on drugs", either.

Here in Taiwan, there are some very strict drug laws on the books, and yet
weed and club drugs are pretty common, as they are in Singapore. Unlike the
US, though, enforcement of drug laws isn't a high priority. There are people
in jail for drug selling and production, but very few for casual use.

~~~
bokonist
_There are people in jail for drug selling and production, but very few for
casual use._

The U.S. is the same way: <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm>
"The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study of their inmate
population. They discovered that out of 47,000 inmates, only 15 people were
incarcerated on first-time drug possession charges."

~~~
xiaoma
No, it's not the same. Even a cursory look at the issue shows that much of the
US prison population is due to "3 strikes" laws. By looking only at first time
possession charges, that entire group is missed.

Furthermore, police in the US have the power to seize cars, seize money, and
quite number of other things without warrant, based upon the _suspicion_ of
drugs being involved. They can't do that here.

------
jacquesm
Simply reverse the situation, if two white guys would have been in that
building when the police arrived would the situation have turned out the way
it did ? If not then race was a factor, either on the part of the police or by
mr. Gates himself.

Crowley seems dodgy and Gates seems a bit too eager to blow this up using it
as a platform. I don't have much respect for either attitude.

After all the police _was_ checking up to see if Gates wasn't about to lose a
part of his property. Once you start asking police for their badge numbers you
are effectively escalating the confrontation, which puts you in the drivers
seat. You then also should take part responsibility for the consequences of
that.

This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

------
bmj
Here's another perspective ([http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-
discretion-a-diff...](http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-
different-perspective/)) from a police captain/philosophy student.

------
DanielBMarkham
Aside from the political nature of this article (davidw, where are you?) I
thought the author took up the mantle against conservatives a little too
easily.

I'm a libertarian, and I support that "be nice to the guy with the gun"
stance. I know liberals and conservatives both who agree. I think it probably
has more to do with having some kind of experience in law enforcement or the
military, but I'm just speculating. It's definitely not just a conservative
position.

No matter who you are -- even without one person having the gun and authority
-- being polite is always a good strategy in any discussion. If you're ugly to
people, they're most likely going to find a way to be ugly back to you.

I think this article misses the difference between political theory and
practical human experience. In theory, I should be able to hurl profanities at
people I don't like. In practice, they have a tendency to punch me in the
nose. I'm all for the theory -- in fact, as far as the photographing of
police, it should be a felony to stop someone from videotaping a police
officer in the line of duty. But in practice I live in a world where
politicians have passed so many laws that are so open to interpretation that
if the cops don't like you, they can find some way to mess with you. That's
just life.

I don't like the current state of affairs, but that doesn't mean I should be
blind to reality either. Instead of whining on about how the real issue should
be control of police powers, I think a more practical position would be to
single out certain areas (like the videotaping) where small changes can have a
big effect. This turns a rant into a call for action.

But we didn't get that.

