This article is just a follow-up to a previous article written in this space in which there was a vigorous discussion in the comments section over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. I try to respond to comments when I can. I see that as a courtesy to those who took the time to write and also as a way of advancing the dialogue.
If you are following this story you know that the Cambridge Police Department has dropped the charges against Professor Gates. It was my view in the previous article that, based on the facts as we know them, Professor Gates was wrong to react belligerently towards the police officer. The officer eventually arrested him in what was undoubtedly a chaotic scene.
With the charges dropped, many who took issue with my position feel vindicated. As one commenter wrote:
Ahh. So this is the fundamental difference between you and I (and perhaps many of the other posters). You believe the root of the problem is Gates. I believe the root of the problem is the officer and his actions. And it seems their police department and city officials agree with me. Charges dropped. Sorry Bruce, you can't arrest someone just because your feelings (or the white race's feelings) were hurt. At least, you can't without repercussions.
I wanted to quote in full, but we can disregard the allegation that an arrest was made because an officer's feelings were hurt --there's no evidence to prove that. As a point of law, a police officer can arrest someone they feel represents a threat.
More to the point, I didn't (and don't) necessarily defend the decision of the officer to make the arrest. That would've been for a court to decide. However, the arrest is an afterthought and, in fact, wouldn't have happened if Professor Gates hadn't have behaved as he did. That's the point. Cooperate with police. If they are hostile, the more you are cordial, the worse it looks for them. If you fight fire with fire, you have what happened last Thursday, the day of the incident in question.
It's interesting to me to parse the decision of the Cambridge Police as a vindication when we have the following (bold-face mine):
"This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department," said Cambridge Police Department Spokeswoman Kelly Downes in a prepared joint statement by the City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department and Mr. Gates."All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances," said Downes.At a press conference this afternoon Downes went on to say that she still believed there was "probable cause" for Gates' arrest."I think what went wrong personally is that you had two human beings that were reacting to a set of circumstances, and unfortunately at the time cooler heads did not prevail," said Downes."I think both parties were wrong," said Downes. "I think that's fair to say. It wasn't Professor Gates' best moment, and it was not the Cambridge Police Department's best moment."
Elsewhere, Professor Gates responded as follows:
I believe the police officer should apologize to me for what he knows he did that was wrong... If he apologizes sincerely, I am willing to forgive him. And if he admits his error, I am willing to educate him about the history of racism in America and the issue of racial profiling … That's what I do for a living.
Tell me this: Why would Gates respond like that if all parties involved agreed that "it wasn't Professor Gates' best moment, and it was not the Cambridge Police Department's best moment."
If Mr. Gates feels so strongly that the officer should apologize, why not take the case to court and get legal vindication through due process? Does Professor Gates sound like he feels he was even the least bit wrong? Why would he agree to a resolution, arrived through close negotiation, that acknowledges that both parties were wrong?
Is it possible that were the case to go to trial we might actually learn through witness testimony that Professor Gates did, in fact, behave unreasonably? He's already expressed flustered anger about his mug shot being on the internet. Is it possible he didn't want to risk the embarrassment of a trial in which we learn his behavior was not only wrong but unbecoming of his reputation as a learned and well-respected scholar?
Further, one wonders if a reason for dropping the charges was because of his notoriety. Had he not been so famous, then what? I wonder if that doesn't deserve a little more outrage knowing that non-descript citizens don't get the privileged treatment accorded the more famous among us. As the Boston Globe reported:
Because of his arrest, Gates said he plans to make racial profiling and prison reform central intellectual and political issues he wants to explore. He’s also considering a new documentary on racial profiling.
Really? Because only now does Professor Gates know what it's like when the average, taxpaying, middle class African American is faced with a potential tinderbox situation because he's being engaged by a white cop? Another reader made what may have been a prescient point in his comment:
So to be accused by others of not knowing what it's like when a black man is stopped by white there are somethings in your article that i agree with but you lack one major thing that all white people lack and when i say all white people i mean all white people. you lack the ability to understand just how this situation came about and why mr gates went off. white people refuse to put aside their selfish views about race to really understand what being in black skin gets you. in a way iam glad this happend to mr gates because blacks like him who acheive the so called american dream seem to think that their acomplishments insulates them from what the brothas and the sistas at ground zero go through everyday. blacks folks like him don't want to put in jepardy what they have gained so they turn a slight blind eye to what they see going on with black folks at ground zero it's only when they suffer from an altercation with white folks involving race that they refer to themselves as being black and suffering an injustice because of skin color. it's our own fault.
Maybe the lack of empathy over race isn't just about the differences between the black and white (which can be significant) but also about the differences between the well-off and the not (which can be insurmountable).
Comments
Funny how the arrest became an "afterthought" throughout our discussion today and now in this article. From the 1st article you wrote:"I can't see where the police sergeant did anything wrong."
And this is the problem many of us are having with you Bruce. The point is, it was wrong for him to be arrested. The officer did not serve his community well. It was up to the officer to decide to escalate or de-escalate the situation. If he hasn't had training in de-escalation techniques, then he needs them now.
And again you continue to take the police dept's statement as pure fact.
"I think both parties were wrong," said Downes. "I think that's fair to say. It wasn't Professor Gates' best moment, and it was not the Cambridge Police Department's best moment."
Where in that statement does it say that Gates agrees with them? And why does he have to initiate months of expensive litigation to make you happy when all he is asking for is an apology?
TC says: "The point is, it was wrong for him to be arrested."
The point is, the arrest wouldn't have happened had Prof Gates not been difficult right from the beginning. He did not behave like a responsible member of the community. And the word I'm taking is in the statement to which both parties agreed. Gates' own counsel partook in the formulation of an agreement that said both sides, which would include his client, were wrong. Can you please respond to Gates' lawyer pointing that out. Does Gates not also owe an apology for acting in a way that his attorney agrees was bad behavior?
Cooperate with police. If they are hostile, the more you are cordial, the worse it looks for them.
The biggest crock I have ever heard. Ha ha ha - No white person in the world would be courteous to harassment from policemen in their own home. The point is policemen tend to treat white people courteously and so we rarely get to see "what they would do."
" At a press conference this afternoon Downes went on to say that she still believed there was "probable cause" for Gates' arrest." Everything that follows that statement was the subjective opinion of the police department spokesperson - including ""I think both parties were wrong."
Why do you insist that Gates or his attorney agreed to that person's opinion? It was not part of the agreed upon statement. If this is a problem with reading comprehension, that is one thing; however, if you are trying to "convict" a person with false evidence that is something entirely different.
Finally, even if Gates did refuse to provide his identification when initially asked, that was not the reason cited for his arrest.
The irony of your complaint is that you contend that a learned professor shouldn't make political expressions. Academia encourages dissent and free expression -- it does not aim to stifle it. The police officer never stated that anyone, including himself, was "threa
DWT says: Why do you insist that Gates or his attorney agreed to that person's opinion? It was not part of the agreed upon statement..."
The joint statement, agreed to by all parties, called the incident "regrettable and unfortunate" and "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department." If that is so, then why does Professor Gates still insist on an apology?
Question: Do you think Gates did anything wrong, yes or no?
axel says: "The biggest crock I have ever heard. Ha ha ha - No white person in the world would be courteous to harassment from policemen in their own home."
A cop answers a call of a possible burglary in progress by two black men. He approaches the scene seeing one one black man inside the house. The man refuses to identify himself. What do you do?
Being cooperative has its advantages.
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032609dnmetcopstop.3e9c080.html
Quote: "the arrest is an afterthought and, in fact, wouldn't have happened if Professor Gates hadn't have behaved as he did." Really?! Really, you know this?! You might have explained, Bruce, that you have the eye of Sauron - this would have made the debate null and void. In any event, whether you mean to or not, you have implicitly sided with the police - and far too many posters have pointed this out already. The fact that the charges have been dropped is, actually, a pretty fair indicator that either a) pursuing the charges would be too politically fraught to make it worthwhile, b) without merit, c) a combination of the two - all of which point toward a bad arrest. Yup, a bad and unnecessary arrest. Gates is essentially vindicated despite the official and unsurprising denial of any wrongdoing.
Do you think Gates did anything wrong? and Do you think he should have been arrested? are quite different questions. Right now, this still seems to be a he said, he said. And one could ask the same question, about wrongdoing, of the officer.
Whether it's profiling or not, should one be arrested for disagreeing, loudly or not, with a cop on one's own property after it's been established that no crime has been committed? It seems dodgy, from a civil rights point of view (despite what Michael Meyers wrote in the New York Post). Fine, it's tough being a cop and it can be dangerous, but are we legally obliged to "yes sir" them at all times, especially if they're behaving badly? It seems clear that there was no real threat to the home, the officer or the public here. Is it okay to arrest someone to teach them a lesson about respect, or to show an uppity old man his place? Police officers are human and fallible, as are Harvard professors, but are you holding them to different standards?
Jack Sanders says: Do you think Gates did anything wrong? and Do you think he should have been arrested? are quite different questions.
That's correct, and I do think Gates was wrong to exacerbate a situation that was, as yet, unknowable to the cop. It's not illegal to be disagreeable with police but it is ill-advised. You can't act like that with a cop at first blush and then complain you were treated unfairly. And you can't continue acting that way after it's been rendered that no crime was committed. The arrest wouldn't have happened if Professor Gates had been cooperative from the very beginning. I'm not saying the arrest was appropriate. A court hearing would've answered that question. But if Professor Gates so insists he was in the right, why did he not pursue the case to court and get the justice he now feels will be accommodated by an apology? Was it because Gates may have realized he was in the wrong after all? He appears too proud to admit that possibility publicly.
RWB says: Whether you mean to or not, you have implicitly sided with the police - and far too many posters have pointed this out already. The fact that the charges have been dropped is, actually, a pretty fair indicator that either a) pursuing the charges would be too politically fraught to make it worthwhile, b) without merit, c) a combination of the two - all of which point toward a bad arrest.
You left out a possibility: That Gates realized he behaved inappropriately and, through his lawyer, offered a tacit mea culpa rather than admit his error publicly. There's nothing implicit here: I do not side with the police or even the officer; I side against Professor Gates intemperance. It was unnecessary and accomplished an unfortunate result that could have been avoided. You seem to have decided that Gates, at no time whatsoever, was in the wrong. Perhaps it's you with the gift for visions. Or fiction. Or denial.
Having watched the Dallas video, Moats behaved well, given the circumstances, but he disagreed repeatedly with the white officer (as was his right), raised his voice, didn't initially hand over his insurance (because he looks like he's in shock), repeated "shut my mouth?" incredulously after the officer told him to do so, etc. Had that officer arrested him on those grounds, would you have blamed Moats for not being respectful enough?
Fine, he didn't say he was an NFL quarterback, but it's not like Gates was reported boasting about being a Harvard professor during a traffic stop, if it was done, it was in his own home on HARVARD'S CAMPUS.
Both sides say he showed his id, both sides said he asked for the officer's identity and both sides say he initially refused to leave his own home with the officer.
Neither of us was there.
Would have been handled differently had he and his driver not been black?
Was he handcuffed and arrested for alleging racism, rightly or not?
Just read your response. Fair enough.
Quote: "You seem to have decided that Gates, at no time whatsoever, was in the wrong." Nope - read carefully my friend, didn't say that at all. What I suspect is that this was a confrontation between two hotheads which, rightly or wrongly, will result in the police losing face because of politics. What I objected to in both columns was the apparent assumption that the police report was unbiased and contained the whole truth and nothing but, which I doubt. You, Bruce, are the one making one-sided assumptions. I rather suspect that Crowley was not forthcoming about his demeanor and neither was Gates. And I suspect they antagonized each other until Crowley was goaded into arresting Gates, something I bet Crowley already regrets. Gates has done nothing to indicate a "tacit mea culpa" - in fact,rather arrogantly, Gates is demanding sensitivity training for all officers. What I object to your reactionary myopia which seems to be a facet of too much journalistic commentary these days.
Jack Sanders says: "Would it have been handled differently had he and his driver not been black?"
That depends on how good you are at proving a negative. Quit denying the fact that Gates behaved inappropriately from the very beginning. If he didn't feel he was in the wrong, if he's so outraged that this is yet another example of racial profiling, and he feels that strongly about it, knowing as an astute and respected scholar of African American history, why doesn't he pursue the matter and clear his name in court? I'm guessing he'll never answer that question directly, let alone be asked it.
RWB says: What I suspect is that this was a confrontation between two hotheads which, rightly or wrongly, will result in the police losing face because of politics. What I objected to in both columns was the apparent assumption that the police report was unbiased and contained the whole truth and nothing but, which I doubt.
I'm glad you doubt it. Unfortunately, that's all we have. I'm happy to have Mr. Gates vet the matter in open court so we can adjudicate the facts accordingly. Let's call not character witnesses but eyewitnesses and let's hear that testimony so he can clear his name. He's chosen not to pursue that course the joint statement bears out why: He exercised bad judgment. The department concedes the police officer could have acted differently. My only point from the beginning was that had the initial outburst not occurred and cordiality been the observed, no arrest would have taken place. Instead, people assume the cop is a racist because the arrested party said so.
RWB says: I rather suspect that Crowley was not forthcoming about his demeanor and neither was Gates. And I suspect they antagonized each other until Crowley was goaded into arresting Gates, something I bet Crowley already regrets."
That is entirely possible and totally avoidable when you cooperate from the beginning. A cop coming upon a possible burglary in progress will certainly be on guard when the response from someone who might be a suspect starts copping an attitude. A court hearing would've revealed whose demeanor was what and I don't wonder if Gates is too proud to be found out he made an error in judgment. Instead, he settles for a "tacit mea culpa," on which he signed off, through his attorney, in the statement released by the department that neither party was judicious. If Gates still insists on an apology from the officer, he should be big humble enough to do likewise. Instead, he's demanding sensitivity training for all officers which is, quite frankly, bulls***.
Jack Sanders says: Was he handcuffed and arrested for alleging racism, rightly or not?
He was handcuffed because he was arrested. Standard procedure. And he was re-cuffed to the front instead of back, which is not standard procedure. Does the cop get brownie points for this? No, but it's unlikely a racist would've done that.
"The joint statement, agreed to by all parties, called the incident "regrettable and unfortunate" and "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department." If that is so, then why does Professor Gates still insist on an apology?"
You're going to have to show me where this was reported as a "joint" statement Bruce. I don't see any quotes from Gates or his attorney saying anything specifically about Gates' behavior. If it exists, I'll leave it alone. But I don't see it anywhere.
If by "wrong" you mean illegal, then my answer is no. I do not believe Gates violated the law, thereby justifying a seizure by the government.
You may find Gates' behavior personally reprehensible, but your opinion or the officer's opinion about appropriateness of pure political speech is not legal justification for an arrest.
As for what ifs . . . what if the officer apologized to Gates, Gates accepted the apology and that is the reason that the charges were dropped? You seem to taunt Gates for not pursuing a court action to rememedy an issue that the parties have already resolved voluntarily. Isn't that eveidence of the decent, learned behavior you expect of a Harvard Professor?
Finally, please address the fact that the reason cited for the arrest stated that the tumultous behavior was in a "public place." That is patently false and the charge would not survive in court. The Police department and the DA knew as much, hence the charges were dropped.
TC says: You're going to have to show me where this was reported as a "joint" statement Bruce. I don't see any quotes from Gates or his attorney saying anything specifically about Gates' behavior. If it exists, I'll leave it alone. But I don't see it anywhere.
Then you should want to see a direct quote from the police officer, no? You won't see direct quotes from anyone.
Google: joint statement + gates and scan both the web and news pages. Then, tell me why Gates would agree to such a resolution if he felt so strongly that he was in the right. Why didn't he pursue the matter to court and let evidence demonstrate that he did nothing wrong?
Here's the joint statement Bruce:
"The City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department have recommended to the Middlesex County District Attorney that the criminal charge against Professor Gates not proceed. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office has agreed to enter a nolle prosequi in this matter.
The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates acknowledge that the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate. This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department. All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances."
That's very different from your highlighted qoute:"I think both parties were wrong," said Downes. "I think that's fair to say. It wasn't Professor Gates' best moment, and it was not the Cambridge Police Department's best moment."
You're continuing to have accuracy problems in your reporting Bruce.
DWT says: If by "wrong" you mean illegal, then my answer is no. I do not believe Gates violated the law, thereby justifying a seizure by the government. You may find Gates' behavior personally reprehensible, but your opinion or the officer's opinion about appropriateness of pure political speech is not legal justification for an arrest.
That's precisely why we have courts. All your hypothetical questions would be answered in a court of law. However Professor Gates may have been wrong was of his own doing. I remind you again, I'm not talking about his arrest; I'm talking about the events that led to it. And he's the one who has chosen (or been advised) to drop the matter. He didn't have to. I would have supported his decision to go to court. Let's hear what REALLY happened if the police report is a lie. Can you explain why a man so wronged by the government would let it go? Apparently he doesn't have your righteous zeal... or maybe he realizes he used bad judgment.
TC says: You're continuing to have accuracy problems in your reporting Bruce.
And you're still not answering my question: If Gates feels he was so violated, why isn't he pressing the matter in a court of law where evidence would bear out what you think is true. You don't know what's true. We have one piece of hard evidence: The police report. Don't like it? Good, contest it in court, salvage your reputation and prove TC right. You have only your belief; no proof. It doesn't matter what you believe; it only matters what you can prove. Gates has chosen not to prove his claim in open court. Why not? Is it because he knows he made a mistake? Answer this question.
Bruce,
How do you expect me or anyone else to speak for him and what he is thinking? You've made the point ad nauseam that we only have what we have. Reports, statements, witnesses, etc.
If you're asking why I might not want to take such a case to court, well that's simple. The time, money, and energy involved would be a waste for a simple apology. Would you Bruce really be willing to sue a police department for an apology? I would call that foolhardy at best in our current court system.
"Don't like it? Good, contest it in court, salvage your reputation and prove TC right."
But his reputation is intact. Even the "joint" statement expresses this, remember Bruce? Besides, the police dept. has the sullied rep now buy falsely arresting Gates. Oh, that's right, you keep wanting to conveniently push aside the arrest part of this. Sorry for mentioning it again Bruce.
TC says: How do you expect me or anyone else to speak for him and what he is thinking?
Many people have, including you, taking his word that he was profiled. If it's as simple as a waste of time to pursue the matter in court (I agree), then he needs to shut up and not prosecute the matter in the media by demanding apologies and claiming racism. A grown up would have graciously admitted his mistake. The joint statement (the veracity of which you seem to doubt) may have admitted poor judgment by both parties (as I've already noted and NOT conveniently pushed aside), but Professor Gates continued to complain. I say again: My point is not about the arrest, which may have been suspect; my point has always been about the professor's behavior leading up to the arrest. He screwed up and isn't grown up enough to admit it. He's a brilliant scholar but as a human being his character should be called into question. Maybe that's a risk he wasn't willing to take in open court.
That statement is absolutely full of falsehoods, Bruce.
1. Where did I ever say he was profiled?
2. What other statements has he or his attorney made since the apology request? In ether words, hasn't he already "shut up" about it?
3. Where in the joint statement (read it carefully, I quoted it in its entirety a few posts down) does Gates admit poor judgement?
4. Yes, you constantly push aside the arrest, it's an "afterthought" to you, remember?
5. The arrest "may" be suspect???
6. "He screwed up and isn't grown up enough to admit it." But you keep saying he did in the "joint" statement (but really, that language is no where in that statement, just questioning your lack of consistency and getting a little tired of it).
Quote: "My only point from the beginning was that had the initial outburst not occurred and cordiality been the observed, no arrest would have taken place."
You don't know this, Bruce, no way. That's ridiculous. And even if Gates was out of line, this still does not make an arrest warranted - the police are the ones who made a tacit mea culpa by dropping all charges immediately. This has been your prima facie assumption all along:Gates was a loudmouth; the cop was only doing his job; the cop's job is to arrest loudmouths. And this one-sided simplicity is what I object to as an observer and reader. No one knows what happened for sure - even those eyewitnesses will probably disagree, and Gates refusal to sue might actually be a mark of some character in our litigious society - again we don't know, and neither do you. The big question is really do police in Cambridge treat black citizens different from white, and your column again implies a very simple answer to a complex question.
Quote: You don't know this, Bruce, no way. That's ridiculous. And even if Gates was out of line, this still does not make an arrest warranted - the police are the ones who made a tacit mea culpa by dropping all charges immediately. This has been your prima facie assumption all along:Gates was a loudmouth; the cop was only doing his job; the cop's job is to arrest loudmouths.
Read lips: I. Did. Not. Say. The. Arrest. Was. Proper. I said Gates caused his own problems with his belicose attitude. The arrest wouldn't have happened if he'd been civil from the beginning. That's what started the ball rolling. Whether the cop was right to arrest could have been determined by due process. We have now ONLY a police report. We COULD have had a court case to determine all the facts. The person whining about being wronged has chosen not to pursue those facts. You and his supporters will have to live with his choice not to clear the air.
"I said Gates caused his own problems with his belicose attitude. The arrest wouldn't have happened if he'd been civil from the beginning. "
Gates forced the police officer to falsely arrest him. Got it.
Note to self: Police officers have no control over their actions when you question their motives. So if I feel wronged in any way, I should just accept their unlimited authority and do as ordered like a good little citizen in Bruce Maiman's utopia. Check!
TC says: "He screwed up and isn't grown up enough to admit it."
Yes, that's what I believe. If he's 100 percent in the right, let him go to trial. In which case, if the evidence bears out, I'm happy to admit it proves my belief wrong.
"just questioning your lack of consistency and getting a little tired of it."
Then stop commenting and accept the fact that we have to agree to disagree. This incident ultimately is a reminder that African Americans face a serious problem when it comes to dealing with police because they believe that African Americans have been so poorly treated over the years --not by all police officers, but by some. It leaves them worrying in each encounter whether they're dealing with good cops or bad cops (that is, in the context of how well they'll be treated). It's an issue that will come back around, without a doubt.
TC says: Yes, you constantly push aside the arrest, it's an "afterthought" to you, remember?
The arrest IS an afterthought because it WAS avoidable. It started with someone's bad behavior and led to an officer making a judgment that may or may not have been questionable. The only way to have determined that would be through a court trial, which you have determined isn't worth pursuing. If it's not worth pursuing the clarity of evidence to determine actionable behavior, why do you insist on arguing that the arrest was wrong? Take it to court and prove it was wrong or don't go to the media and demand that the officer "owes me an apology." Professor Gates: The officer owes you nothing if you're not willing to go to court.
TC says: Where in the joint statement (read it carefully, I quoted it in its entirety a few posts down) does Gates admit poor judgement?
All parties agreed that poor judgment caused this incident. These parties were represented by Charles Ogletree and authorities for the Cambridge Police. Professor Gates retained an attorney Mr. Ogletree to represent him. If Gates doesn't admit tacitly, vicariously through his attorney that he was wrong, why did he allow his attorney to agree to the joint statement?
TC says: The arrest "may" be suspect???
That means the arrest may have been improper. That deterimination could have been made in a court of law.
TC says: What other statements has he or his attorney made since the apology request? In ether words, hasn't he already "shut up" about it?
Start by reading the Boston Globe story linked in the above article. He even wants to dedicate his research to racial profiling, including a documentary. Why wait till now? You mean it had to happen to him first? That's the point of the "What if?" column. If racial profiling is so egregious --and it is-- why would it take this long for a scholar on African American history to now decide to devote his energies to it? As another reader commented, is it because he doesn't care about those who are not in his social or economic class? That a troubling question and I wonder why no one is addressing it.
TC says: Where did I ever say he was profiled?
--Check your post at 07/21/2009 02:02 PM and tell me that's not what you're inferring.
--Explain your language in the post dated 07/21/2009 10:01 AM where you use the words "racial profiling."
--In your post of 07/21/2009 10:52 AM, you write, "It appears that the officer actually wanted to arrest Gates." Why do you believe that's what the officer wanted to do?
--What does it mean in your post off 07/21/2009 03:36 PM, "you can't arrest someone just because your feelings (or the white race's feelings)" What does "white race's feelings" mean?
TC - "I said Gates caused his own problems with his belicose attitude. The arrest wouldn't have happened if he'd been civil from the beginning. " Gates forced the police officer to falsely arrest him. Got it. Note to self: Police officers have no control over their actions when you question their motives. So if I feel wronged in any way, I should just accept their unlimited authority and do as ordered like a good little citizen in Bruce Maiman's utopia. Check!
Sounds like someone else needs to grow up besides Professor Gates.
Quote: "Read lips: I. Did. Not. Say. The. Arrest. Was. Proper."
Read between the lines: Yes. You. Implicitly. Did.
Quote: "I said Gates caused his own problems with his belicose attitude. The arrest wouldn't have happened if he'd been civil from the beginning."
I apologize, Bruce, I did not realize you were actually there - I did not see your name in any of the other articles or the police reports. I guess, then, we now have attitude police. And who knew being "bellicose" (see spelling) was a crime? I thought only being "tumultuous" was a crime. One way or the other, the cop made a bad call for a personal affront, not the law.
Quote: "We have now ONLY a police report. We COULD have had a court case to determine all the facts."
You really do have faith in the powers-that-be, don't you? Well, the court of public opinion is very divided on this one, but trust me, we "supporters" (do you really read the comments that you respond to?) of Gates have not seen the last o
Here's the crux of the problem, TC: You don't trust the police report. I say it's the only evidence we have and if we're going to test the veracity of the report (which I'm happy to do) then we have to take it to court. You don't seem to want to do that, and neither does Gates. That means we have no other evidence to substantiate what you believe even though you have conceded that "Gates could've handled the situtation better." That's what I've been saying all along, adding that his bad behavior contributed to an officer's decision to make an arrest. You say he didn't deserve to be arrested. That's quite possible. A court would've proven that beyond a doubt. We are left now with a joint statement that, without saying it with specific words, admits that a) Gates was out of line (my position) and b) that the arrest was improper (your position, and one that I never contested).
--Check your post at 07/21/2009 02:02 PM and tell me that's not what you're inferring. Re-read the post again. I was clearly referring to you Bruce, not the officer.
--Explain your language in the post dated 07/21/2009 10:01 AM where you use the words "racial profiling."
Unbelievable Bruce! You take the last 2 words and ignored the rest of the post. You can't be serious here.
--In your post of 07/21/2009 10:52 AM, you write, "It appears that the officer actually wanted to arrest Gates." Why do you believe that's what the officer wanted to do?
Because his authority might have been ignored. That has nothing to do anyone's race.
--What does it mean in your post off 07/21/2009 03:36 PM, "you can't arrest someone just because your feelings (or the white race's feelings)" What does "white race's feelings" mean? Again, referring to you Bruce. Are you old enough to remember what R.I.F. stood for?
"Sounds like someone else needs to grow up besides Professor Gates."
When you inject unbelievable deductive fallacies like: "I said Gates caused his own problems with his belicose attitude. The arrest wouldn't have happened if he'd been civil from the beginning" then I have to either laugh or cry. So I made a little jokey joke. Sue me.
"Here's the crux of the problem, TC: You don't trust the police report."
Why should we trust the police report any more than we trust statements from Gates or his lawyer? I give them equal weight.
But that's not the crux of our problem Bruce and you know it.
RWB: You're inferring. Or infering, if you prefer typos (sort of like "situtation" - don't get prissy in an effort to win argumentation points). Please find where I said the officer was correct to make the arrest. Please find the words that say Gates should have been arrested. Gates made a signal mistake. It's a common-sense rule of life: You don't mess with cops. It doesn't matter who you are. If a cop says cease and desist, you a) cease, and b) desist. One does otherwise at his or her own peril.
And if you choose not to have faith in the powers that be, start a revolution. The court of public opinion is entitled to have an opinion but it's not entitled to have facts that don't exist. And opinions, even popular ones, can be wrong. We haven't seen the last of this? Good. Let's hope a YouTube video surfaces that puts the matter to rest entirely. If the police report is wrong about Gates initial behavior, I'll be first in line to say I was wrong to put my faith in it.
TC says:
"Here's the crux of the problem, TC: You don't trust the police report."
Why should we trust the police report any more than we trust statements from Gates or his lawyer? I give them equal weight.
But that's not the crux of our problem Bruce and you know it.
It is in this particular case. The larger societal problem is simply being transposed over this one. This is a separate incident, as are all incidents. You wanna talk racial profiling? Different subject.
TC says: When you inject unbelievable deductive fallacies..."
Project much?
"I have to either laugh or cry."
I hope I can get sitcom writer wages for that.
TC says: "--Check your posts..."
So in your mind, this is not an issue of race, or is it?
"TC says: When you inject unbelievable deductive fallacies..."
Project much?"
Just making sure you're actually reading the posts. I was beginning to worry there for a minute.
"So in your mind, this is not an issue of race, or is it? "
Now I'm beginning to worry again. Pay close attention to my posts. They have never been about the race of the officer or Gates. They could've been the same race as far as I'm concerned. I've always focused on the abuse of power by this particular police officer. Far more dangerous than the possible rantings of an elderly man coming from an overseas flight who walks with a cane and is physically ill and had trouble getting into his home. Which one of these things effects society (and me) more? A possibly cranky old man, or an incompetant police officer? I just think you've been barking up the wrong tree Bruce just as most of us have been trying to point out to you.
Ouch! "affects" not "effects". My old comp. professor would kill me for that. Wish you could edit.
The neighbor called the police as an act of civic duty. She wanted to protect her neighbor (Gates) from what she thought was a robber. Her neighbor (Gates) was in China, after all. The police responded (more than they do in D.C.). While putting his life on the line to protect Gate's property, the officer sought to confirm that the man before him actually lived in the house. The eternal victim went off on the cop - who he continues to call a racist. There is no actual "smoking gun" pointing to "racism." the cop did not use a slur or take any action that supports Skip's claim. The cop arrested the arrogant appendage because he was being a penis and was out of control. I do not know whether the cop is a racist. I do know that Gates is. He has made that quite clear. He is also an elitist Harvard snob who dismisses any white, blue collar cop as a subordinate and a pre-condemned klansman. Now, that's racist. And classist. Classic modern liberal. Millionaire victim.
Gates will not take it to court. He would be exposed there. That would be too fair to the cop. No, the millionaire victim will instead use taxpayer money to fabricate a PBS "documentary" (they will invite him to do so) which will present one sided account of his personal trauma. Like presenting the case for the prosecution in court and sending the jury to deliberate without ever hearing the defense side of the story. Liberal "justice." On the public tab. Typical. This would be a good time to burgle his house. The police won't be getting there so quickly next time. Maybe they should designate a black cop for his house. And a white cop for KKK leader David Duke's house. He teaches victimology at Harvard. This is "a teachable moment," as the smug liberals like to condescending tell us all. But the lesson may not be the one that he wants to teach. The lesson is one of liberal hate. Liberal racism. Liberal intolerance. Liberal elitism. Liberal arrogance and self-righteousness.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!