Henry Louis Gates Makes Nice Gesture To 911 Caller

The Boston Globe reports that Gates sent Lucia Whalen flowers. Sphere: Related Content

Boston PD Acts Smartly, Suspends Cop For Calling Gates A "Jungle Monkey"

A Boston, Mass. cop writes email to friends calling Henry Louis Gates a " Jungle Monkey." I wan to hear the nuts defend him from being suspended. Is this just one idiot cop? Sphere: Related Content

We Should Talking About "The Right To Criticize Armed Agents Of The Government"

Radley Balko at Reason agrees with Harvey Silvergate that the first amendment and "police arrest powers" should be the topic of discussion regarding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates.

Balko writes:

"By any account of what happened—Gates', Crowleys', or some version in between—Gates should never have been arrested. 'Contempt of cop,' as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The 'disorderly conduct' charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest."

Sphere: Related Content

Henry Louis Gates's First Amendment Rights

Harvey Silvergate writes at Forbes magazine that the appropriate lens in which to understand the Gates-Cambridge PD affair is as a violation of a citizens first amendment protections.

Silvergate writes:

"By longstanding but unfortunate (and, in my view, clearly unconstitutional) practice in Cambridge and across the country, the charge of disorderly conduct is frequently lodged when the citizen restricts his response to the officer to mere verbal unpleasantness. (When the citizen gets physically unruly, the charge is upgraded to resisting arrest or assault and battery on an officer.) It would appear, from the available evidence--regardless of whether Gates' version or that of Officer Crowley is accepted--that Gates was arrested for saying, or perhaps yelling, things to Crowley that the sergeant did not want to hear.

As one of Crowley's friends told The New York Times: 'When he has the uniform on, Jim [Crowley] has an expectation of deference.' Deference and respect, of course, are much to be desired both in and out of government service--police want it, as do citizens in their own homes or on their porches or on the street. However, respect is earned and voluntarily extended; it is not required, regardless of rank."

Silvergate, a first amendment attorney, as he points out several times, takes the reader through a compelling explanation of his claim that Gates' first amendment rights were violated. He discusses the applicable precedents. Silvergaet writes:

Today, the law recognizes only four exceptions to the First Amendment's protection for free speech: (1) speech posing the "clear and present danger" of imminent violence or lawless action posited by Holmes, (2) disclosures threatening "national security," (3) "obscenity" and (4) so-called "fighting words" that would provoke a reasonable person to an imminent, violent response.

He later writes in reference to Gates' own writing on free speech on university campuses:

"Under Gates' own analysis of the University of Connecticut 'harassment' speech code, neither Officer Crowley's words to Gates, nor the professor's responses, nor the officer's replies to those responses, should prove the guilt of either. There was no violence. There were only words, some of which might have been insulting and otherwise unpleasant. And in a free society, verbal expression--even if disagreeable--should never lead to clamped handcuffs."

Definitely worth the complete read.

Sphere: Related Content

Beer Meeting at the White House Will Be a Family Reunion

I thought about this a couple of days ago but not seriously. A story from ABC News claims that Gates "and the Cambridge, Mass., police officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, both trace their ancestry back to the legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages." Sphere: Related Content

A Good Reason Why Dr. Gates Was Arrested?

He may have killed someone then dined on the body.

American Thinker may be one of the most disgusting websites I have seen. Writers for this site continually make outrageous arguments and comparisons. Today Randall Hoven writes "How Cops Should Do It?" The emphasis on "should" is Hoven's. Be warned, Hoven is a master the art of Reductio ad absurdum.

Hoven tries to explain the similarities between between Jeffrey Dahmer and the Gates-Cambridge PD affair. In his description of the Dahmer situation Hoven writes that police were called to the scene where a naked man, a homesexual, was walking naked outside a house. The house belonged to Dahmer. The police ask the naked man if he was OK and Dahmer tells them that the man is fine. The police leave and the man is killed by Dahmer. Dahmer had killed 17 men and boys before he was captured.

I know the connection to Gates so far is thin. But if you drink a lot it will not become clearer. Hoven tries to put the final coat of crap on this story. He writes:

"But the police did their jobs: no ethnic profiling, no homophobic biases - just good, politically correct police work.

When called to a potential crime scene at a residence and the legitimate resident tells you everything is fine, a good police officer makes no further inquiries, calls in his report that 'all is well', and returns to his previous duties.

Heck, politically correct policing is so easy that anyone can make the right call without even being at the scene, hearing witnesses or gathering evidence. You can do it from your own house, or even the White House."

The police did not capture Jeffrey Dahmer so Hoven believes the fourth amendment should be repealed unilaterally by police just in case.

How outrageous is that? Is that a conservative attitude?

Sphere: Related Content

Sowell asks: What does a community organizer do? He does not know so he makes it up.

I have counted so far essays at various outlets that call President Obama a liar, either implicitly or explicitly. I am OK with that, I don't think it is true but it seems hard for people working in policy, politics and opinion to avoid the assumption if someone disagrees that person must be lying.

What bothered me was Thomas Sowell in the National Review online. Sowell's A Post-Racial President? asserts that the idea that we were entering the post-racial era was a naive hope. Sowell thinks if you understand where President Obama comes from a place where people "benefit greatly from crying racism." The place which Sowell refers is "community activist." Sowell writes:

"For 'community organizers' as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama’s background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose."

That is not my experience as a community organizer. Actually not my experience as a community organizer in the exact position Barack Obama held in early 1980 in Harlem. Perhaps there is a difference between a white and black community organizers but I have not witnessed any differences. A community organizer does not promote "grievance and polarization" as Sowell asserts. A community organizer, such as Barack Obama, is a instrument for people and communities that need to enter the policy process where they have been ignored.

Sowell's implication that a community organizer is a fan that blows rage, resentment and division between communities to gain "politically, financially, and socially" is grossly overstated and offensive. I agree there are some organizers who have a developed self interest but they are few.

Now to a point of act that Sowell gets wrong. Sowell writes:

"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the 'racial profiling' issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was engaging in racial profiling, when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge."

Here his claim is that President Obama in the July 22 news conference accused Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD of racial profiling. But a simple return to the text and or video of the news conference dispels this error. From the transcript of the news confernce (the video is at teh bottom):

Question: "Thank you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?"

Answer: "Well, 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...

But so far, so good. 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 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 enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

It is very clear to me that President Obama did not claim this incident to be racial profiling. This line, "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident," is very important. Perhaps Sowell missed it or perhaps he is engaging in fanning the flames of "resentments and paranoia" and "using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish [his] purpose."

Sphere: Related Content

Is Barack Obama A "Regular Guy"?

I think the President addressed the Gates and Cambridge Police issue magnificently on Friday. I don't think he had to revisit the issue, if all thing were equal, but politically it was a distraction that needed to be dealt with.



What is the point of inviting Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley to the White House for a beer. The invitation is a good way to defuse the problem but the beer seems unneeded. Was President Obama trying to identify with Crowley?

Just three "regular guys" sitting around drinking some brews talking about race. That doesn't seem real.

What do you think?
Sphere: Related Content

Kinsley on Dr. Gates, Race and Police

Michael Kinsley on Dr. Gates arrest.
Kinsley writes:

"generalizations about race don't lead only to bad things, like an unjustified arrest. They can lead to good things, too. The best example is well known around Harvard Square and other academic communities: affirmative action. Part of the rationale for affirmative action is that African Americans are more likely than whites to have struggled harder, under the burden of greater disadvantages, to reach the point where they are poised to enter Harvard. Therefore, they deserve a break. No doubt this is true on average. And no doubt it is false in many cases. You can easily decide that some generalizations are just too toxic to allow, even if true on average, and race might be a good area to start. But you'd be hard-put to justify forbidding racial generalizations in split-second decisions during tense confrontations between citizens and cops, while allowing them in the relatively leisurely precincts of a college admissions office."

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Eric Dyson Makes A Joke Regarding Dr. Gates Arrest

Michael Eric Dyson makes a fair joke about the arrest of Dr. Gates. I think it goes to my previous point. Henry Louis Gates Arrest.



Sorry about the quality of the video. Sphere: Related Content

Henry Louis Gates Arrest

I read the police report and have initially three questions.

1. Is it possible to act disorderly on your own property or in your house?
2. If you are going to show ID to an officer in this situation why not show ID with your address?
3.It is possible the person with the real problem with race is the woman who called the police?


I did find funny the line in the report that says Gates said his front door was unsecurable because of a previous break in attempt. Sphere: Related Content

The Plank @ TNR on Gates and Pres. Obama's Statement

Jason Zengerle at The New Republic distills the aftermath of Dr. Gates interaction with Cambridge police and President Obama's statement.

23.07.2009

Race, Power, and the Law

And, while I realize there are all sorts of issues of race tied up in the Gates case, I think that the power dynamics involved are getting short shrift. Even if you're white, any time you have an encounter with a police officer, the officer has the upper hand in terms of power, since he's the guy who has the power to arrest you. After that initial encounter, however, that power dynamic can be reversed--at least if you're sufficiently rich, accomplished, and connected, as Gates is. (If you're not those things, that power dynamic will probably never change.) Which is why, at this point, Gates clearly has the upper hand over Crowley in terms of power. The irony is that Crowley's initial abuse of power has now put him in the position of being largely powerless.

To read the essay click here

Sphere: Related Content

Conor Friedersdorf at the Daily Dish On Dr. Gates Arrest

Benefits of Doubts

by Conor Friedersdorf

On Internet discussion boards I've been following, people are debating the altercation between black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department. A point of disagreement is whether police officers should be given "the benefit of the doubt" in these situations due to the difficulty of their jobs.

Lest anyone doubt that the job is difficult, let me share a brief story. On a ride along with the NYPD in Manhattan, the squad car I inhabited got a call that sent us speeding from Union Square to a destination maybe 10 blocks away, tires screeching, sires wailing. The dispatcher said merely that someone reported a street scuffle involving a dozen men, that one wielded a baseball bat, and that a street front window had already been shattered. As we pulled onto a small street in question, under cover of darkness, view of the altercation was obscured by a large truck parked illegally on the street. The effect was that after the squad car rounded its cab, we found ourselves on the edge of the melee.

It all happened damned quickly. The two officers in the front of the car jumped out immediately, pushed through the onlookers at the edges of the commotion, grabbed a guy and pinned him against the wall. As I watched from the backseat of the squad car, I couldn't figure out why they grabbed that particular guy, but it quickly became apparent that in a split second they'd somehow identified the only man on the scene with a weapon (a knife), separated him from everyone else, and disarmed him, without ever brandishing their own guns. I was impressed, and conscious of how easy it would've been to make a mistake in that situation: a violent altercation already underway, a crowd of men, one of them armed, and darkness. It gave me a better idea of how police officers are sometimes killed, and how they sometimes injure or kill the wrong person.

Given that kind of situation, where split second decisions are forced upon officers, adrenaline is pumping, and all the rest, I understand the impulse to give them the benefit of some doubts. But why should police officers require the benefit of the doubt when they are confronted with a lone guy -- old, nonthreatening in appearance, apparently well-dressed -- who is pushing on the front door of a house in a nice neighborhood? Does that sound like a particularly dangerous situation? That isn't to make a judgment about what actually happened, or whether the officer misbehaved. It is merely to say that the matter should be decided on its merits, that it is irrational to give the officer any special "your job is hard" benefit of the doubt, especially in a circumstance significantly less difficult than many police face. Why privilege the story of the officer over a law-abiding citizen who turns out to have been outside his own house? If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt in cases like this one, it is the citizen.

Sphere: Related Content

John McWhorter On The Arrest Of Dr. Gates

Henry Louis Gates has been getting some poor treatment from some outlets.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20090722_Letters__Black_prof_pulled_rank_at_wrong_moment.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDg0ZDYxOGIxNGM3ZDJjZTMxZWYwZDYyNGU3Y2MwNmE=

http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/409289.asp

Perhaps Dr. Gates could have behaved differently if certain reports are accurate, but that misses the larger point. Luckily, John McWhorter works to bring the focus back to the broader issue that Dr. Gates' arrest displays. Sphere: Related Content