Did the Cambridgfe Mass. police act stupidly in arresting Harvard Professor

[rickortreat]

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, a policeman responded to a call about a potential break-in. Upon arriving at the location he found the Proffesor and requested ID, which the home-owner provided, proving that the house was in fact his. The rest of the information is sketchy, coming from the police report.

It seems to me, that if you prove to a policman that the house he's concerned about is yours and that you're ok, that he should be satisfied.  In fact it's very hard to understand ANY scenario in which the homeowner gets arrested. President Obama said the police acted stupidly and yet we have the rank and file policeman behind the officer in spite of the fact that the charges were dropped.

It's hard to come to a direct conclusion because of the hearsay information, but it seems to me that these policeman are MORONS!  Absent of the professor pulling a gun on the police, their job is to protect and serve and not harrass.

[westkoast]

I think he acted stupid.  I can't believe right wing talk radio has just focused in on 'oh well its okay for a lady to call the cops if a man looks like hes breaking into a house, they had break ins before!' and 'He was acting belligerent to the cop'  They even went as far to say that he followed the cop outside to continue to talk trash.....yet the picture clearly shows he was cuffed right at his front door.

Once the ID was provided the cop should have left.  Arguing with a cop is not against the law and neither is being 'belligerent' in your own home.  While I think they both let their egos get the best of them, one person was taken out of his home and booked, one wasn't.  Clearly the cop was acting like a typical a-hole cop.

To me the real problem was that a 50 year old black male, in a polo shirt, TUCKED IN, with a cane was not given the benefit of the doubt that he owned the home.  That bothered me moreso than anything else.  Had it been some 20 year old wearing huge baggy pants, a big chain, and a doo rag then it might have been a different story.

[Joe Vancil]

I'm siding with the police officer on this one.  (Surprise, surprise.)

Let's say I'm a policeman.  I've gotten a call telling me 2 men are trying to break into a house.  I'm going in, assuming, for my own safety, that these two men have hostile intent.

In such a case, if I'm the policeman, I'm going to ask the man to step outside his house, whether he's the home-owner or not.  Why?  If there is someone inside with hostile intent, I've just removed that person's bargaining chip.  If a person asks suspiciously, for any reason, I'm going to assume something is going on inside - the homeowner or a member of his family is endangered.  I'm going to be even more demanding that he step outside.  Right now is my best chance for safeguarding the homeowner.

The reason the man is arrested is for one reason and one reason only - he became belligerent and abusive.  And he did it to a person who was only trying to safeguard him.

Let me throw out the following scenario:  let's assume that there *WAS* someone in there with hostile intent.  That was reported to the police - by the neighbor (thank goodness for a neighbor who actually cared enough to get involved).  2 people are there - the home-owner, and a burglar.  Or perhaps 2 burglars with the home-owner unaware of their presence.  The policeman just goes, "Oh, false alarm.  Sorry sir," and leaves.  Are we then looking at a situation where a black home-owner says, "Well, if I were white, the police would have actually checked on things"?  What happens if the burglar kills this man, when the police could have prevented it?

We have to ask this question:  were the police being unreasonable by asking the man to come outside, and by asking if anyone else was in the house with him?  The answer is "NO."  In fact, ONLY by getting the man out of the house can you assure that you are in control of the situation.

This is one of those cases where a man with a chip on his shoulder is upset because someone gave him a vehicle for his paranoia.  He overreacted.  He was arrested.  End of story.

[westkoast]

I'm siding with the police officer on this one.  (Surprise, surprise.)

Let's say I'm a policeman.  I've gotten a call telling me 2 men are trying to break into a house.  I'm going in, assuming, for my own safety, that these two men have hostile intent.

In such a case, if I'm the policeman, I'm going to ask the man to step outside his house, whether he's the home-owner or not.  Why?  If there is someone inside with hostile intent, I've just removed that person's bargaining chip.  If a person asks suspiciously, for any reason, I'm going to assume something is going on inside - the homeowner or a member of his family is endangered.  I'm going to be even more demanding that he step outside.  Right now is my best chance for safeguarding the homeowner.

The reason the man is arrested is for one reason and one reason only - he became belligerent and abusive.  And he did it to a person who was only trying to safeguard him.

Let me throw out the following scenario:  let's assume that there *WAS* someone in there with hostile intent.  That was reported to the police - by the neighbor (thank goodness for a neighbor who actually cared enough to get involved).  2 people are there - the home-owner, and a burglar.  Or perhaps 2 burglars with the home-owner unaware of their presence.  The policeman just goes, "Oh, false alarm.  Sorry sir," and leaves.  Are we then looking at a situation where a black home-owner says, "Well, if I were white, the police would have actually checked on things"?  What happens if the burglar kills this man, when the police could have prevented it?

We have to ask this question:  were the police being unreasonable by asking the man to come outside, and by asking if anyone else was in the house with him?  The answer is "NO."  In fact, ONLY by getting the man out of the house can you assure that you are in control of the situation.

This is one of those cases where a man with a chip on his shoulder is upset because someone gave him a vehicle for his paranoia.  He overreacted.  He was arrested.  End of story.

Arrested for what?  Being belligerent in his own home?  That's not a crime Joe.  Arguing with an officer is not against the law either.

[Reality]

Ratt "Lack of Communication" 1983    The live videos are horrible.  Listen to the original studio version. 

Don't have nearly enough of the facts yet so didn't vote yet.  The Right media is a sad joke tho.  Bitter selfish losers.

I love Obamas style.  Was it him or the cop who said lets have a beer and hash this out?  Then the cop said "Could you get these media slugs off my lawn" and Obama said "I have a bigger lawn then you and i can't get them off my lawn." 

[Joe Vancil]

I'm siding with the police officer on this one.  (Surprise, surprise.)

Let's say I'm a policeman.  I've gotten a call telling me 2 men are trying to break into a house.  I'm going in, assuming, for my own safety, that these two men have hostile intent.

In such a case, if I'm the policeman, I'm going to ask the man to step outside his house, whether he's the home-owner or not.  Why?  If there is someone inside with hostile intent, I've just removed that person's bargaining chip.  If a person asks suspiciously, for any reason, I'm going to assume something is going on inside - the homeowner or a member of his family is endangered.  I'm going to be even more demanding that he step outside.  Right now is my best chance for safeguarding the homeowner.

The reason the man is arrested is for one reason and one reason only - he became belligerent and abusive.  And he did it to a person who was only trying to safeguard him.

Let me throw out the following scenario:  let's assume that there *WAS* someone in there with hostile intent.  That was reported to the police - by the neighbor (thank goodness for a neighbor who actually cared enough to get involved).  2 people are there - the home-owner, and a burglar.  Or perhaps 2 burglars with the home-owner unaware of their presence.  The policeman just goes, "Oh, false alarm.  Sorry sir," and leaves.  Are we then looking at a situation where a black home-owner says, "Well, if I were white, the police would have actually checked on things"?  What happens if the burglar kills this man, when the police could have prevented it?

We have to ask this question:  were the police being unreasonable by asking the man to come outside, and by asking if anyone else was in the house with him?  The answer is "NO."  In fact, ONLY by getting the man out of the house can you assure that you are in control of the situation.

This is one of those cases where a man with a chip on his shoulder is upset because someone gave him a vehicle for his paranoia.  He overreacted.  He was arrested.  End of story.

Arrested for what?  Being belligerent in his own home?  That's not a crime Joe.  Arguing with an officer is not against the law either.

Whether or not either is legally permissible, both are unwise.  And a peaceful protest of words is one thing, but being belligerent towards someone who is trying to make sure you are safe is just being an @$$.  And trust me, if you're an @$$, you're not going to get any breaks.  At that point, you're INVITING abuse - not because of your race, or gender, or political belief, or whatever, but because YOU'RE AN @$$!  At that point, I'm sure the policeman was watching for *ANY* violation of the law.

The man should be grateful that 1) the police responded to protect his home and property, and 2) a neighbor cared enough to actually call.  "Thank you for coming, officer, but I'm sure you can see I'm completely safe and there's no one intruding here at my house" would have solved the problem.  "You're a racist jerk who is prying into my business!" is always going to be counter-productive.

Also, I do not see why me being hostile toward a waitress at a restaurant or to a co-worker at the office is considered bad form, because these people are just doing their jobs, but being belligerent toward a police officer just doing his job makes the policeman the jerk.

[westkoast]

I'm siding with the police officer on this one.  (Surprise, surprise.)

Let's say I'm a policeman.  I've gotten a call telling me 2 men are trying to break into a house.  I'm going in, assuming, for my own safety, that these two men have hostile intent.

In such a case, if I'm the policeman, I'm going to ask the man to step outside his house, whether he's the home-owner or not.  Why?  If there is someone inside with hostile intent, I've just removed that person's bargaining chip.  If a person asks suspiciously, for any reason, I'm going to assume something is going on inside - the homeowner or a member of his family is endangered.  I'm going to be even more demanding that he step outside.  Right now is my best chance for safeguarding the homeowner.

The reason the man is arrested is for one reason and one reason only - he became belligerent and abusive.  And he did it to a person who was only trying to safeguard him.

Let me throw out the following scenario:  let's assume that there *WAS* someone in there with hostile intent.  That was reported to the police - by the neighbor (thank goodness for a neighbor who actually cared enough to get involved).  2 people are there - the home-owner, and a burglar.  Or perhaps 2 burglars with the home-owner unaware of their presence.  The policeman just goes, "Oh, false alarm.  Sorry sir," and leaves.  Are we then looking at a situation where a black home-owner says, "Well, if I were white, the police would have actually checked on things"?  What happens if the burglar kills this man, when the police could have prevented it?

We have to ask this question:  were the police being unreasonable by asking the man to come outside, and by asking if anyone else was in the house with him?  The answer is "NO."  In fact, ONLY by getting the man out of the house can you assure that you are in control of the situation.

This is one of those cases where a man with a chip on his shoulder is upset because someone gave him a vehicle for his paranoia.  He overreacted.  He was arrested.  End of story.

Arrested for what?  Being belligerent in his own home?  That's not a crime Joe.  Arguing with an officer is not against the law either.

Whether or not either is legally permissible, both are unwise.  And a peaceful protest of words is one thing, but being belligerent towards someone who is trying to make sure you are safe is just being an @$$.  And trust me, if you're an @$$, you're not going to get any breaks.  At that point, you're INVITING abuse.  At that point, I'm sure the policeman was watching for *ANY* violation of the law.

The man should be grateful that 1) the police responded to protect his home and property, and 2) a neighbor cared enough to actually call.  "Thank you for coming, officer, but I'm sure you can see I'm completely safe and there's no one intruding here at my house" would have solved the problem.  "You're a racist jerk who is prying into my business!" is always going to be counter-productive.

Also, I do not see why me being hostile toward a waitress at a restaurant or to a co-worker at the office is considered bad form, because these people are just doing their jobs, but being belligerent toward a police officer makes the policeman the jerk.

I work and have lived in LA, we don't need to be told about the bold 

I agree that I think BOTH their egos really took it farther than it should have gone.  The prof was upset that he was not given the benefit of the doubt and the cop was upset that he was doing the 'DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM I WANT YOUR BADGE NUMBER'.  Had both parties not let their egos get the best of them we wouldn't be talking about this.  Why do I have a feeling that if this was two women it would have been peaceful LOL!

My problem is that he was not given the benefit of the doubt.  I personally don't assume middle aged men with tucked in polo shirts, leather shoes, and a bad hip are the type to break into homes in broad day light.  Had he looked more like a hip hop thug with a doo rag, huge flashy chain, some pants that you could hide WMDs in and looked like he was a younger man then the cop would have a better argument.  In this case he does not.

The difference between your waitress/cop example is that police are not regular citizens when in uniform.  A waitress can not find a reason to bring criminal charges against you.  At the very best she can talk to a manager to ask you to leave.  In a work setting the very best that person you directly have a problem with can do is talk to a manager or HR.  A cop, who would be directly involved in the argument can take it upon himself to make a reason to take you to the station.  That's what the problem is and why a cop is looked at like a 'jerk'.  If he/she is upset with you he/she can take it upon oneself to 'punish' you whether right or wrong in the argument.  That is exactly what this guy did here.  There was no burglary.  Arguing with a police officer is not against the law and being belligerent in your own home is not an arrest able offense.

[rickortreat]

Pardon me, but the Harvard Law Professor asked for the policeman's badge number and he refused.  THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW!  Regarldess of anything else, an anonymous tip about a home break in the police officer is required to identify himself.

The next thing is that this man pays taxes to support the police. In effect he was harassed by an employee!  Note that eveyone in politics from the Cambrige municipal authority to the President had a real problem with the police officers behavior and note that the police themselves dropped the charges.  The only people who are defending this officer are other policeman.

Now a normal layman might have handled things differently, but in this case it was a Harvard Law Professor, someone who knows the law better than anyone else in Boston. A cop decides to get into a pissing match with a man like that should loose and should do down hard.  Would you want a cop like that working in your neighborhood? Arresting people because they're upset realizing their home, might have been broken into and the cop decides to arrest you rather than investigating. Sorry this man is too stupid to be a policeman, IMO.

[Lurker]

The officer did identify himself.  The homeowner got irate and belligerent.  I agree with Joe; the cop was in the right.

To address another issue:

Being belligerent to a cop EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME can be basis for arrest.  If you are interfering with the cop trying to do his job then you can be arrested.  Let's say you are in your home and your brother starts beating up his wife.  Your wife calls the cops but when they get there things have calmed down but it is obvious what happened.  As the cop tries to find out what has happened you scream at the cop to leave your house.  You tell him it is none of his business and to leave.  You start barking orders at him for his name, badge number, unit, supervisor name, etc.  The cop has every right...and in most cases should...bust you for interfering.  IMO this is what Gates did.

[Ted]

Koast and Rick, you sound like you know as much of the facts as Obama did. Have you read the police report? Have you read the arresting officers written report? Do you know what Gates' first words to the policeman were, when the officer asked if he would show identification?

He was arrested on the porch, not in the house, as he shouted at the policeman and the neighbors.

I have to admit, when I first heard the story, I cringed because it sounded ridiculous for the policeman to do that. But after a couple of days and more information, I have to agree, for the most part, with both the arrest and the decision to drop charges. Gates was being disorderly, and he was an ASS. And sure, the officer probably was a power head, but he was definitely within the law, and he did nothing wrong.

I have no problem with Obama voicing his opinion. I have to admit, I was a little embarrassed for him (and others I suppose). "I have to admit I don't know many of the facts of the case . . . but it's clear the police acted stupidly."

Do they teach that style of argument at Harvard? Admit ignorance and state position. Hmm . . .

Anyways, guys, read the reports, bridle your biases, and then tell us what you think.

[Ted]

My problem is that he was not given the benefit of the doubt.  I personally don't assume middle aged men with tucked in polo shirts, leather shoes, and a bad hip are the type to break into homes in broad day light.  Had he looked more like a hip hop thug with a doo rag, huge flashy chain, some pants that you could hide WMDs in and looked like he was a younger man then the cop would have a better argument.  In this case he does not.

Oh give me a break! The policeman stepped inside the house, says, "Sir, I'm responding to a call regarding a possible break in at this address. Can you show me some identification?" And the guys shouts, "NO I WILL NOT!"

And you're whining about benefit of the doubt. But since you love giving people the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to assume you haven't read the police reports. And if our President can blast a police department in ignorance, I can't hold it against you.

"I'll talk to your mama on the porch!"

A leading African-American scholar advances the cause of race relations by freaking out on a police officer responding to a citizen's report of burglary.

[westkoast]

Koast and Rick, you sound like you know as much of the facts as Obama did. Have you read the police report? Have you read the arresting officers written report? Do you know what Gates' first words to the policeman were, when the officer asked if he would show identification?

Talk radio has covered it EXTENSIVELY for the entire week.  Both conservative talk radio (KFI) and liberal talk radio (Air America)  Not only have I heard the police report but I've heard it multiple times.  Since you read it, exactly what in the police report said all that other than he was being 'belligerent'?  There was no parts of the police report that alluded to a real crime or any type of threats on the officers life.

Btw, the police report is only one side of the story.  A bias one at that.  So why exactly is the police report treated as gospel in your eyes?

He was arrested on the porch, not in the house, as he shouted at the policeman and the neighbors.

Yes, as soon as he stepped one foot out he was arrested.  Everyone saw the picture.  Nothing more than a lame technicality.

I have to admit, when I first heard the story, I cringed because it sounded ridiculous for the policeman to do that. But after a couple of days and more information, I have to agree, for the most part, with both the arrest and the decision to drop charges. Gates was being disorderly, and he was an ASS. And sure, the officer probably was a power head, but he was definitely within the law, and he did nothing wrong.

The fact that a policeman can get into a disagreement with someone and take it upon themselves to punish someone is the problem.  Being arrested, driven away from your home after just getting back from a trip overseas, finger printed, have a mug shot taken, and the embarrassment of all that is being punished.  Whether the actual criminal charges were dropped or not it was still a major pain in the rear.   

I have no problem with Obama voicing his opinion. I have to admit, I was a little embarrassed for him (and others I suppose). "I have to admit I don't know many of the facts of the case . . . but it's clear the police acted stupidly."

Do they teach that style of argument at Harvard? Admit ignorance and state position. Hmm . . .

Anyways, guys, read the reports, bridle your biases, and then tell us what you think.

It was clear the police acted like an a-hole because this was a middle aged man, wearing a polo shirt, who walks withh a cane that should have been given the benefit of the doubt that it was in fact his home.  Who is to say the police wasn't an ahole to him from the jump?  Because that wasn't in the police report? 

[Ted]

New bulletin: Middle-aged men wearing polo shirts cannot possibly be involved in criminal activities. This is the report I'm talking about:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/upload/documents/GatesPoliceReport.pdf

There is another police report filed by another responding officer, Carlos Figueroa, that backs up the fact that Gates was yelling

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates3.html

You'll note that both reports indicate the gentlemen was on the porch yelling when he was arrested. That's two police reports from two officers. And the arresting officer, Crowley, has a stellar record and was even selected by an African-American superior to teach a class on avoiding racial profiling.

On a side note, I just read this article and thought it was interesting.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/27/gates_caller_didnt_cite_race_police_say/

Bottom line: Gates reacted foolishly by immediately pulling the race card and being belligerent to a police officer responding to a reported crime. All he had to do was say, "Yeah, this is my house. I'm Henry Louis Gates, this is my ID. I just got back from China and lost my keys, so I had to force my door. Thanks for checking in."

Seriously, that's all he had to. If that happens, the officer tips his cap and says good day sir. Is it that unreasonable for a police officer in that situation to ask him to come outside and talk? Well, anyway, we know what happened. Gates acted like an idiot and gave the officer all the reason he needed to be a power head. It's not like being a police officer is a fun, easy job. You get all kinds of shite from all kinds of people for no reason other than you're a cop. Now I'm not saying the officer had to arrest him. He didn't. From his refusal you can tell he's proud and quite sure he was in the right. There's no reason to give that kind of cop a reason to cuff you. Turning yourself into a martyr in front of onlookers, calling the cop a racist in front of onlookers . . . ridiculous.

[JoMal]

This is certainly off topic, for sure.

1. Why were the cops even there?

Because a women called them after seeing two men trying to jimmy a door in a neighborhood that apparently was having issues with break-ins.

2. But one of the men owned the house.

Actually, he was renting the house and was not yet well-known to any of his neighbors. And he looked like he was trying to break into a house. (is this hard for some people around here to comprehend?)

3. So the cops clearly overreacted by insisting the person they encountered show proof he lived in a house he was seen trying to break into and did.

And was confronted with 'cops are clearly racist for asking him for his identification and they were 'profiling'. Again, it just seems that they would have to to this whether or not the men they encountered in the house were black or not. It just seems to me they were being sure because it is their job to be sure. And the men had been reported to be breaking into a house and the men the police encountered in the house were black. Who, exactly, would they then go in search of for identification in the house other then the two men they encountered, who, once again for the reading impaired, had been reported to them as being there and trying to break into, let me think, the house they were investigating?

4. There was an overreaction in here somewhere, but once the cops started to leave and were once again verbally assaulted by the renter (not owner), they could have kept walking or they could come down to the level of the renter and cuff him in front of his neighbors to make it look like he may be guilty of the break in after all. This is where the cops have to explain themselves.

5. The cop who did the arresting was, in fact, the training officer for five years on that police force for....um....training officers NOT to just racially profile suspects.

[westkoast]

New bulletin: Middle-aged men wearing polo shirts cannot possibly be involved in criminal activities. This is the report I'm talking about:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/upload/documents/GatesPoliceReport.pdf

There is another police report filed by another responding officer, Carlos Figueroa, that backs up the fact that Gates was yelling

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates3.html

You'll note that both reports indicate the gentlemen was on the porch yelling when he was arrested. That's two police reports from two officers. And the arresting officer, Crowley, has a stellar record and was even selected by an African-American superior to teach a class on avoiding racial profiling.

On a side note, I just read this article and thought it was interesting.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/27/gates_caller_didnt_cite_race_police_say/

Bottom line: Gates reacted foolishly by immediately pulling the race card and being belligerent to a police officer responding to a reported crime. All he had to do was say, "Yeah, this is my house. I'm Henry Louis Gates, this is my ID. I just got back from China and lost my keys, so I had to force my door. Thanks for checking in."

Seriously, that's all he had to. If that happens, the officer tips his cap and says good day sir. Is it that unreasonable for a police officer in that situation to ask him to come outside and talk? Well, anyway, we know what happened. Gates acted like an idiot and gave the officer all the reason he needed to be a power head. It's not like being a police officer is a fun, easy job. You get all kinds of shite from all kinds of people for no reason other than you're a cop. Now I'm not saying the officer had to arrest him. He didn't. From his refusal you can tell he's proud and quite sure he was in the right. There's no reason to give that kind of cop a reason to cuff you. Turning yourself into a martyr in front of onlookers, calling the cop a racist in front of onlookers . . . ridiculous.

Let me put this into perspective for you here....and let's save the 'I didn't know middle aged white men can't commit crimes' bs.  You know exactly why the point was made that he was a middle aged man in tucked in polo shirt with a cane.  ill even type it out to make it very clear. H e should have been given the benefit of the doubt.  For all you know the police could have approached him as a robber as oppose to asking him what was going on.  If they were still trying to open the door when the cops showed up, simple question simple answer.  If the cops showed up after he was already inside that makes the situation worse.  If he didn't have a napsack trying to ran sack items then what would be the point of acting like he was robbing the house?  Both you and Jomal are doing an excellent job of tip toeing around the fact that the cop could have came off wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time or the last time.

I take it you have never been pulled over by yourself or with someone else for something real petty only to have a cop make you jump through hoops for no apparent reason.  If you haven't I can tell you first hand it is very annoying to get pulled over because 'the light on your license plate was out' and have the cops all the sudden act like people are on drugs just because teenagers are in the car.  Or better yet if you've even driven around with a black guy in a semi-nice car you'll understand that there are plenty of instances of people not being given the benefit of the doubt.  I think a middle aged man, in a tucked in polo shirt, with a cane should be asked 'what happened' and not 'what are you doing here'.  Clearly there is a difference between the two.  If you just got home after a long trip, your door was jammed, and then a cop approached you as if you were a criminal rather than talking to you, you probably would have got upset as well.  It is not against the law to get upset with an officer when you are not committing a crime.

Jomal, whether he owned it or rented it is irrelevant.  No one is saying it is the ladies fault for calling in what she thought was a robbery so this point doesn't apply.  On top of that, whether he rented it or owned it, it was still his residence and he belonged there.