The More Things Change....

[TC]

Jul 27, 2009 17:31:03 GMT -5 Boz said:

I do not have any police training, but I am pretty sure that if I go to investigate a robbery, and the first thing that happens when I show up and ask a question is that the person in the house begins yelling at me and calling me a racist, well, I don't much care what that person looks like or how old he is or whether he's holding a cane (which, we should remember, is a potential weapon)....

...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be considering that person a possible danger and a threat right away.

Except that Crowley said in his interview that his first reaction to Gates was that he did not look like a threat and he looked like owned the place.

[kchoya]

Jul 27, 2009 18:40:12 GMT -5 TC said:

Jul 27, 2009 17:31:03 GMT -5 Boz said:

I do not have any police training, but I am pretty sure that if I go to investigate a robbery, and the first thing that happens when I show up and ask a question is that the person in the house begins yelling at me and calling me a racist, well, I don't much care what that person looks like or how old he is or whether he's holding a cane (which, we should remember, is a potential weapon)....

...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be considering that person a possible danger and a threat right away.

Except that Crowley said in his interview that his first reaction to Gates was that he did not look like a threat and he looked like owned the place.

How is that inconsistent?

[jerseyhoya34]

Nine pages deep into this thing, and I am still unclear as to why Obama needs to apologize. His comments have been quoted here, there, and everywhere, and I am still waiting to see an analysis that argues the original statement was incorrect. Most of the arguments, which I find deeply troubling, focus on how it was improper or impolite of Obama to criticize the white police officer in the tone that he did or that it simply was not Obama's place to muddle in what is a local matter.*

The Republicans, in my mind, have not yet found a consistent and effective attack angle when it comes to Obama. Their response to Obama's handling of the Gates incident fits into the "Obama as uppity" lens that started in the Democratic primaries but continued in the general election. How patronizing it is to have a grade C congressman ask for an apology from the President of the United States given that nothing in the President's statement was incorrect. It will work in some places, no doubt, but I think most well-intentioned people will see right through it.

*The latter argument - that it was a local matter - seems to be falling by the wayside as we see Republicans introduce resolutions in Congress and circulate global petitions on the incident through their Congressional offices and national campaigns.

[Boz]

You think it's Presidential to call people stupid on national TV?

I thought you didn't like that kind of George Bush style.

I'm not sure how this is Democrat v. Republican (except for the fact that everything in Washington is of course), but regardless of what any Republicans are doing, with all due respect, if you think Obama has come off of this incident looking at all good, I think you may have some blinders on.

Now, I gave him credit, and deservedly, for trying to bring these two together. I think that's a good thing and, when all is said and done, maybe he will come out of this with a net positive. But he's not there now, no way. America has pretty overwhelmingly rejected his initial response, if polling is any indication.

[jerseyhoya34]

Jul 27, 2009 20:42:44 GMT -5 Boz said:

You think it's Presidential to call people stupid on national TV?

I don't think it is and am glad President Obama did not do it. To think that he did is to engage in a blatant misinterpretation of his statement, perhaps in the name of political correctness. Most can appreciate that "stupid" following a form of the verb "to be" is not the same as "stupidly" modifying a form of the verb "to act."

Jul 27, 2009 20:42:44 GMT -5 Boz said:

...if you think Obama has come off of this incident looking at all good, I think you may have some blinders on.

I have never said the incident is not damaging. My point is that "looking at all good" is about mere appearances, when it is substance with which I concern myself primarily on this and other issues when it comes to a merits analysis, and, as stated upthread, I am not yet aware of an argument that President Obama's statement was incorrect.

[strummer8526]

Jul 27, 2009 20:42:44 GMT -5 Boz said:

You think it's Presidential to call people stupid on national TV?

I thought you didn't like that kind of George Bush style.

I'm not sure how this is Democrat v. Republican (except for the fact that everything in Washington is of course), but regardless of what any Republicans are doing, with all due respect, if you think Obama has come off of this incident looking at all good, I think you may have some blinders on.

Now, I gave him credit, and deservedly, for trying to bring these two together. I think that's a good thing and, when all is said and done, maybe he will come out of this with a net positive. But he's not there now, no way. America has pretty overwhelmingly rejected his initial response, if polling is any indication.

I can't believe there is polling on this topic. I don't agree with Obama. I've been in the "this is not racism; the cops weren't wrong" camp the entire time. But seriously...are we still talking about this nonsense?!

[TC]

Jul 27, 2009 20:42:44 GMT -5 Boz said:

I'm not sure how this is Democrat v. Republican (except for the fact that everything in Washington is of course), but regardless of what any Republicans are doing, with all due respect, if you think Obama has come off of this incident looking at all good, I think you may have some blinders on.

Now you are totally confusing me - two pages back you made the insinuation that Obama created this mess on purpose to distract people from healthcare.

I'm sick of everyone involved in this and hope they all go away soon, it's making me miss Michael Jackson coverage.

[fsohoya]

The president was clearly trying to connect -- even if he provided an obligatory statement that he wasn't - the arrest of Gates to a history of racial profiling. That is unacceptable given his professed ignorance of the facts in the case, which are at-best in dispute and seem to suggest that Gates quickly flew off the handle. And the president did no one any good with this, sending an unfortunate message to white people and cops that even the accusation of being a racist could get you a negative spotlight all the way from the White House. And stop blaming Republicans for this, Ambassador. I am yet to read a story in the media on this matter that says a single thing about Republicans driving it or even commenting on it. This is not to say that Republicans aren't trying to capitalize on it - I have no doubt that to some extent they are - but if anyone is pushing it very publicly it's commentators like Derrick Jackson, Eugene Robinson, and Stanley Fish - and, of course, Gates himself - who have been trotting out guilt by historical association almost since the incident happened.

For a reminder of what the president said, by the way, here is his full answer at the press conference. It certainly appears designed to imply that the Gates incident - with the accustation of an at-best stupid police reaction, and failure to even entertain the possibility that Gates was unjustifiably berating the cop - was very likely connected to cops' long history of profiling and racism:

Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

[Boz]

Jersey:

OK, you area really playing the semantics game here. But fine. I will submit that it is equally non-Presidential to get on national TV and say that the police "acted stupidly." It is as unacceptable as an adverb as it is as an adjective. If you really think that the impression that most people got was NOT that he was calling them stupid, that's really a stretch.

Strummer:

Tell me something that they do NOT poll on in 2009. Of course they poll on this. They polled on the frickin' DOG, I think. It may be crazy for them to do that, but that's the way it is.


TC:

You will notice a big smilie after that comment about health care. Would I put it beyond a politician of the caliber of Obama/Emanuel to try to distract with something like this? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't put it past any politician, let alone those who are as good at it as they are. But I wasn't serious about saying that's what they were trying to do here. Sorry if you took it that way.

[DanMcQ]

Photo Op scheduled for Thursday at 6:00 PM

[RusskyHoya]

One outcome that would be a positive would be a greater awareness of the changes that need to be made to our system of policing, particularly since cops are often willing to arrest people with the knowledge that they would never be held criminally liable in a court of law. The arrest record and the experience of being powerless in the hands of the police officer are the punishment for "contempt of cop."

Two illustrations. First:

Typically an officer would not cite an individual for disorderly conduct in a case like Gates. Disorderly conduct has a specific definition in the statutes and state courts have interpreted those statutes to give a lot of leeway in favor of freedom of speech. See State v. Montgomery, 31 Wn. App. 745, 644 P.2d 747 (1982).

However, officers get around this by arresting those who commit POP ("Editeding Off Police") with obstruction. Obstruction has a much broader definition and covers anyone accused of "willfully hindering or delaying" an investigation.

My last trial as a public defender involved a client who was pulled over and asked to produce his license. Before doing so he repeatedly asked the officer why he was being stopped. The officer forcefully yanked the man out of his car, threatened to taser him and arrested him in front of his 9 year old boy. It should be noted the officer was white and my client Mexican/Hispanic. While he was getting loaded into the police cruiser the client asked why he was being arrested. "Because you're an Edited," the cop replied.

Despite having a father who was NYPD for 25 years, obtaining a degree in criminology and aspiring to enter law enforcement, my work as a public defender has taught me one thing. Ninety percent of the time an obstruction charge is absolute bull.

Illustration two, taken from Duran v. City of Douglas Arizona:

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. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510.

...

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. > 17 > 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,"

[AustinHoya03]

Jul 28, 2009 11:37:54 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

One outcome that would be a positive would be a greater awareness of the changes that need to be made to our system of policing, particularly since cops are often willing to arrest people with the knowledge that they would never be held criminally liable in a court of law.

Russky:

Just wondering -- have you ever been arrested? Have you ever worked in the criminal justice system? Do you have any direct experience at all with our "system of policing?" Or did you just Google "Andrew Sullivan" and "Ninth Circuit" and decide that there is a problem with rogue police officers in the United States of America?

Again, I don't think this arrest should have been made, but it was completely within the police officer's discretion to make an arrest. If you want to get rid of laws that allow police discretion, that's fine. But all of you holding this incident up as a shining example of widespread police misconduct in America are fighting a losing battle.

[Elvado]

Every moment that is spent deriding the officer is time not spent on recognizing that our president acted "stupidly" in judging without facts and now wants to play phony peacemaker.

[RusskyHoya]

Jul 28, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jul 28, 2009 11:37:54 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

One outcome that would be a positive would be a greater awareness of the changes that need to be made to our system of policing, particularly since cops are often willing to arrest people with the knowledge that they would never be held criminally liable in a court of law.

Russky:

Just wondering -- have you ever been arrested? Have you ever worked in the criminal justice system? Do you have any direct experience at all with our "system of policing?" Or did you just Google "Andrew Sullivan" and "Ninth Circuit" and decide that there is a problem with rogue police officers in the United States of America?

Again, I don't think this arrest should have been made, but it was completely within the police officer's discretion to make an arrest. If you want to get rid of laws that allow police discretion, that's fine. But all of you holding this incident up as a shining example of widespread police misconduct in America are fighting a losing battle.

As to your first question, I have, actually, although I'm not going to claim the police in that situation acted inappropriately. I've never worked within the criminal justice system, although my various experiences with it have left a certain impression that does impact my thinking, I'm sure.

Anyway, you're arguing against a point that I'm not making, although I can see why you think I am. I certainly don't think of the incident as "a shining example of widespread police misconduct in America." It does illuminate in a general way what you call cases of "police discretion," however. I think that this discretion is often exercised by police in a way that exceeds the boundaries of the law, and the punishments for exceeding it are typically minor, if any. This is part of a larger lack of accountability that IS, I think, a major problem with policing in the U.S. and leads to fiascos like the "let's plant a package on the mayor's front porch and then raid his house and shoot his dogs" affair in PGC. In most cases, however, it doesn't get publicized the way that case has been.

I also didn't google anything, I read that particular blog not infrequently.

[Bando]

Jul 28, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jul 28, 2009 11:37:54 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

One outcome that would be a positive would be a greater awareness of the changes that need to be made to our system of policing, particularly since cops are often willing to arrest people with the knowledge that they would never be held criminally liable in a court of law.

Russky:

Just wondering -- have you ever been arrested? Have you ever worked in the criminal justice system? Do you have any direct experience at all with our "system of policing?" Or did you just Google "Andrew Sullivan" and "Ninth Circuit" and decide that there is a problem with rogue police officers in the United States of America?

Again, I don't think this arrest should have been made, but it was completely within the police officer's discretion to make an arrest. If you want to get rid of laws that allow police discretion, that's fine. But all of you holding this incident up as a shining example of widespread police misconduct in America are fighting a losing battle.

If you don't think there are problems with police misconduct in America, I want to know what you're smoking. Just look over at the PG County police department, for pete's sake, where apparently you can shoot unarmed men without any consequences and you're free to shoot the mayor's dogs as long as you think there are drugs in the house. There have been accusations of sexual assualt by on-duty NYPD officers, a BART officer who straight-up murdered a man in Oakland, and a cop who bludgeoned a woman who got into a car accident with the officer's son then arrested her for assault. And that's just lately off the top of my head.

One of policing's biggest problems is the gradual militarization of our police that began in the 1970's. For decades the Pentagon has been cheaply selling military surplus to police departments, so much that most PDs are more paramilitary organizations than constabularies any more. Furthermore, police officers have unsurprisingly taken the whole "war on drugs" framing to heart, with citizens being seen less as protectees and more as possible enemy combatants. There's simply no reason that the majority of drug warrants should be served in a no-knock method with SWAT teams, except that many jurisdictions have elaborate SWAT teams (paid for by the federal government) with little justification for their existence.

We entrust police officers with extraordinary power, chief among them being to arrest and to kill if necessary. This kind of power deserves aggressive oversight, not subservient deference.

As per the Cambridge matter, Gates did nothing illegal. "Disorderly conduct" is attempting to start a riot, not simply being agitated. Cops have no right to shut anyone up, and being a dick is not in itself illegal. The officer in question acted wrongly, regardless of how Gates was acting. A badge is not a license to be respected under penalty of arrest.

Furthermore, the 911 call has come out, and nowhere does the caller mention the race of those breaking in. This directly contradicts the police report, and puts the onus of profiling directly back on the officer in question.

[TC]

Jul 28, 2009 14:34:55 GMT -5 Bando said:

Furthermore, the 911 call has come out, and nowhere does the caller mention the race of those breaking in. This directly contradicts the police report, and puts the onus of profiling directly back on the officer in question.

The 911 call does NOT directly contradict the police report. The police report says that he talked to Whalen on the scene and she told him in person that there were two black men who entered the house. Whether that's true or not, I dunno - it certainly contradicts the story she gave over the phone, but it doesn't contradict the police report.

www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

I wish someone would ask Lucia Whalen whether she told Crowley that or not.

[theexorcist]

Bando:

I agree that police deserve aggressive oversight. However, it seems like too many people are willing to claim "contempt of cop" despite no evidence to the contrary.

Cops are put in a very difficult position - they are trained to assume that the people they stop and/or arrest are going to try to kill them. They are also the only legal use of force (outside of personal self-defense). If somebody gets mugged, it's the cop's fault that he didn't stop them before the mugging. If somebody gets stopped because a cop thought someone seemed suspicious, then the cop is harassing them. There is a very small line in between.

On the gradual militarization - criminals have access to high-level weaponry. Cops in Omaha engaged in a firefight aren't going to be able to call the FBI office in St. Louis and have their PD hold down the fort for a few hours while the truck screams down with HRT personnel. Combine this with Mexican militia groups that have access to heavy weaponry (at least for border states), and SWAT seems reasonable.

On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot.

[Boz]

Jul 28, 2009 14:34:55 GMT -5 Bando said:

being a dick is not in itself illegal.

Problem #7852 with America if you ask me. ;D ;D


Seriously though, something is curious and I haven't figured it out yet.

Both Gates and his driver went into the house, yes? At least that's what I am led to understand. When Whalen called 911, it was to report two men entering. By the time Crowley had arrived, the driver had gone and Gates was alone in the house. I think that is undisputed by anyone.

I really have to believe that Whalen, who called 911 and stayed on the scene, was watching the house while waiting for the police. Stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean, you wouldn't call 911 and then go off and make tea, I don't think.

I have to believe that she saw the driver leave, no? Why didn't she tell the police this? Or, if she did, why wasn't this noted in the police report?

Probably has nothing to do with what's got everyone's panties in a bunch this last week, but it just seemed really strange and I haven't figured out the explanation for that.

[TC]

Jul 28, 2009 15:07:09 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot.

In a tony Cambridge neighborhood at 1 AM Gates was going to get 7 people who were walking by to riot?

<SethAndAmy>Really? Reaaaallly?</SethAndAmy>

[jerseyhoya34]

Jul 28, 2009 8:39:08 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jersey:

I will submit that it is equally non-Presidential to get on national TV and say that the police "acted stupidly." It is as unacceptable as an adverb as it is as an adjective. If you really think that the impression that most people got was NOT that he was calling them stupid, that's really a stretch.

We will have to agree to disagree on the first two sentences. We agree on the last one - I do think most Americans will believe that President Obama called the Cambridge Police as such stupid (present tense at the time), but I think most on here would probably tilt toward my interpretation. My only point is that the former interpretation has some added ginger that one does not find in ink or on camera.

Jul 28, 2009 8:35:36 GMT -5 fsohoya said:

The president was clearly trying to connect -- even if he provided an obligatory statement that he wasn't - the arrest of Gates to a history of racial profiling. That is unacceptable given his professed ignorance of the facts in the case, which are at-best in dispute and seem to suggest that Gates quickly flew off the handle. And the president did no one any good with this, sending an unfortunate message to white people and cops that even the accusation of being a racist could get you a negative spotlight all the way from the White House. And stop blaming Republicans for this, Ambassador. I am yet to read a story in the media on this matter that says a single thing about Republicans driving it or even commenting on it. This is not to say that Republicans aren't trying to capitalize on it - I have no doubt that to some extent they are - but if anyone is pushing it very publicly it's commentators like Derrick Jackson, Eugene Robinson, and Stanley Fish - and, of course, Gates himself - who have been trotting out guilt by historical association almost since the incident happened.

For a reminder of what the president said, by the way, here is his full answer at the press conference. It certainly appears designed to imply that the Gates incident - with the accustation of an at-best stupid police reaction, and failure to even entertain the possibility that Gates was unjustifiably berating the cop - was very likely connected to cops' long history of profiling and racism:

Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

I need not back off of criticizing the Republicans who are helping to prolong the controversy. I have not blamed them for it, but that is beside the point. I hope the point intended is not that only Republicans can comment critically on the incident when the President cannot.

Perhaps a soothsayer could help me to understand how President Obama "clearly tr[ied]" to link the incident to racial profiling when, in plain English, he stated "separate and apart from this incident" before all of his comments regarding racial profiling. It is an exercise in folly to get from ink on a page to what many think Obama said, what they believe Obama wanted to say, or what they think the words as delivered really meant in some sort of parallel universe of the English language.

This is where I think the answer to my challenge of identifying what Obama needs to apologize for can be found. Obama need not apologize for what he said, but, rather, for what people heard or elected to hear.