Harvard Professor Arrested--Gates Black in America

[Morag]

Here's an excerpt from a similar case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451

Second, contrary to the city's contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant's husband to produce his driver's license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime "`for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.'" Id., at 132 (citation omitted). We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance "punishe[d] only spoken words" and was not limited in scope to fighting words that "`by their very utterance [482 U.S. 451, 462] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'"

Can anyone say that Professor Gates really presented a danger of "serious substantive evil"? Of course not. The cop overreacted. He should have just left Gates standing on his own porch, un-hancuffed, un-arrested, and with his cane. Remember, Gates knows all about professor-type stuff, and the police officer is supposed to know all about cop-type stuff.

 

[southcitymom]

It's awesome that Obama called the police officer, made positive public statements about the officer and backed off his original choice of words. I'm appreciative when public figures address the mistakes they make.

"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up," he said. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently." more at link below

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-worl...ceman-99582.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

It's nice to see one man publicly owning his poor choices.

 

[Snick1946]

I hope I didn't hear this right- has anyone else heard the the Cambridge PD is suing the president? Not trying to spread rumors but that's what I thought I'd heard, maybe it was that they are considering it.
My God have we come to this? Both sides need to back down and get over it.
One personal note, many years ago I was stopped by the police and respectfully tried to disagree with an issue, was threatened with arrest, then after I got a ticket this policeman followed me home and sat in front of my driveway- with his lights flashing. When I went out to ask him what he was doing he refused to tell me so I called the PD and asked what he was doing there- he took off and left right away. I later got an apology from his supervisor with the assurance he would get some training on PR.
What was interesting was the reactions I got from my co workers when telling the story, my black friends all were on my side with comments like 'now you see what we've been talkiong about' My white friends all regarded me with suspicion. One of them told me I had to be lying, police don't do stuff ike that.
We are seriously divided, people. Sad.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I just want to say that everything is not black or white. LE got a call from a woman who saw 2 males struggling with a door. Anyone would have thought a key would open the door with no problem, so the woman thought this was suspicious. LE has to respond to every call. This probably came across as possible home invasion.

LE responded to the call, the professor got smart with LE and LE arrested that person. I am sure the professor was angry and probably was agressively speaking to the officer. I am on LE's side with this one. I do not think this was racial profiling at all. More likely it was the professor pulling the old, "I am a professor and above reproach." Doesn't work that way, IMO. LE did not know what they were going to be faced with when they arrived onscene.

Also, remember the Georgia professor who went into a rampage and shot people during a Saturday afternoon gathering in Georgia? Remember the case of the professor whose young student died at his townhouse about a year ago? (don't remember his name) So it doesn't matter WHO you are, LE doesn't know what violence you may be capable of.

There are some Bad Apple LE that eventually get weeded out, but LE ARE the 'good guys' for the most part. I think we would all call LE if we needed them. Sorry, but it just chaps my behind when people attack LE unless they know for a fact it is warranted. I do not believe the race issue was a factor here for LE. I was trying hard not to comment on this thread, but I finally just had to.

Having said that:

AND Obama, IMO, had no business making the comment he did. He took sides in a matter before he knew the facts. He has now admitted that he should not have used the word 'stupidly'. But he DID, and that is a fact. He is in a CYA mode. I seriously doubt he would have made the same statement had the situation been a white man and a black LE officer. So now, who was being racist here? IMO, it was the professor and Obama.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Let's see, a report comes in that 2 black men with backpacks are trying to jimmy open the door to a residence. The police officer shows up and a black man is inside the house. Instead of showing ID and explaining the situation, this "professor" starts screaming racial remarks and threats. Why? I would have been happy that my neighbors were watchng out for me and that the police responded so quickly.

Obama chimes in without knowing the facts and automatically blames the white police officer. Obama and the professor are the racist pigs here.

Fact of the matter is that blacks are racists. I don't know why that particular moniker is reserved for only whites.


Obama and the professor owe the police Sargeant and the department an apology.

[/B]

BBM
I so agree with that, DotsEyes. But will the professor and Obama apologize? Heck no.

 

[Julespa]

Of course no two incidents are the same, but I have to ask: did you refuse to open the door to the officer? Did you yell through the door to him that you'd talk to "yo mama" outside when he asked you to step out? Did you tell him it was "none of your business" when he asked if you lived there? Did you scream at him and call him names or were you polite and explain what happened?

I actually froze and stared at the policeman. He asked me for my ID and I obliged. I didn't pitch a fit like the professor did.

 

[lilacwine]

I live one state away and have seen the press conferences..

I have NOT heard the Cambridge PD was going to sue the President.

Remember...there were attempted breakins in the area and even at the professor's residence in the last few weeks... I think that add something to the situation

IMO

 

[lilacwine]

According to the press conference(s) I've seen...

Gates got an attorney who approached the police about dropping the charges.. which they did after discussion.

Gates continued to make remarks about Connolly being a "racist" and a "Rogue cop".

Connolly retained a lawyer who advised Gates' attorneys that a defamation of character lawsuit would be considered, if he continued to call the officer a racist.

I'm not home and don't have the links... but local media would be
Boston Globe
WCVB tv

 

[LaLaw2000]

I have a question.

If it's ok for us to be filled with righteous indignation for Professor Gates (who feels he is being discriminated against due to his race), is it also ok for us to feel righteous indignation on behalf of the white officer who arrested him, who is also now being discriminated against (due to his race) by Dr. Gates and his supporters?

For the record, I don't believe in discrimination. I believe in fairness and equality for everyone, regardless of skin color.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[LaLaw2000]

Neighbors said Gates was "belligerent".

Officer tried to save Reggie Lewis years ago- gave him mouth to mouth, kinda doubt he is a racist..

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re...gates_im_not_apologizing/srvc=home&position=0

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[LaLaw2000]

I live one state away and have seen the press conferences..

I have NOT heard the Cambridge PD was going to sue the President.

Remember...there were attempted breakins in the area and even at the professor's residence in the last few weeks... I think that add something to the situation

IMO

The Cambridge PD will not sue anyone. Whether you are city police or parish/county sheriff's office, you cannot sue anyone per department regulation. Even if an incident were to happen while not on duty, you still cannot sue. IMO, someone is making this statement without knowing that it cannot be done.


JMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

Black or white, we are all human beings. It is my most fervent wish that we could regard each other as human beings regardless of color. We are not physically different from each other except for color. We are identical in the human form. Why is it that color seperates us so very much? Someday, just maybe we can all just forget color.

I have had my say and am out of here. I do hope everyone has a great weekend!

 

[hockeymom]

I certainly hope whoever was doing the initial break ins in that area doesn't decide to come back. I'm guessing LE would be pretty slow in responding next time Gates needs assistance.

 

[Morag]

It is settled law, in a Supreme Court case decided in 1987, that:

the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=482&invol=451

It seems to me that any veteran police officer (and one who teaches classes about racial profiling at that) should know that saying Pig or yo mama or This is an outrage is protected speech.

This was no case of "clear and present danger or serious substantive evil"- it was just public inconvenience (at a very minor level), annoyance (to the cop), and as for unrest, I dunno. The small crowd gathered to watch Gates' humiliation didn't seem to jump into action. The policeman made a mistake, which he shouldn't have. Gates took umbrage, as he was legally entitled to. Police aren't supposed to arrest people for hurting their feelings, or swearing at them, or even insulting their lovely mothers.

What happened here was a case of a cop overstepping his authority.

Will anyone tell me why Professor Gates was a danger or an evil in this case? He was just a citizen, grumpy about being dissed by a cop. And if Sgt Crowley was afraid of a frail man 20 years his senior...Well.
Yes, and ideally, Prof Gates should have just kept his yap shut and it would have all ended quickly and well. But he didn't do anything illegal or even wrong.

 

[RayStar]

Did the cop ask where the other man was? Did the witness say she saw the limo driver leave? Would not the cop want to know from the witness whether both persons were still in the house as to protect himself? Most importantly would not he ask the witness if she saw any weapons? Did she any luggage/garment bags?

 

[RayStar]

I certainly hope whoever was doing the initial break ins in that area doesn't decide to come back. I'm guessing LE would be pretty slow in responding next time Gates needs assistance.

Perhaps, they will locate the witness is that ok? I doubt if the dept. wants any more bad publicity.

 

[magnolia]

It is settled law, in a Supreme Court case decided in 1987, that:

the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=482&invol=451

It seems to me that any veteran police officer (and one who teaches classes about racial profiling at that) should know that saying Pig or yo mama or This is an outrage is protected speech.

This was no case of "clear and present danger or serious substantive evil"- it was just public inconvenience (at a very minor level), annoyance (to the cop), and as for unrest, I dunno. The small crowd gathered to watch Gates' humiliation didn't seem to jump into action. The policeman made a mistake, which he shouldn't have. Gates took umbrage, as he was legally entitled to. Police aren't supposed to arrest people for hurting their feelings, or swearing at them, or even insulting their lovely mothers.

What happened here was a case of a cop overstepping his authority.

Will anyone tell me why Professor Gates was a danger or an evil in this case? He was just a citizen, grumpy about being dissed by a cop. And if Sgt Crowley was afraid of a frail man 20 years his senior...Well.
Yes, and ideally, Prof Gates should have just kept his yap shut and it would have all ended quickly and well. But he didn't do anything illegal or even wrong.

How did the "police officer" overstep his authority?

 

[EGirl]

It is settled law, in a Supreme Court case decided in 1987, that:

the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=482&invol=451

It seems to me that any veteran police officer (and one who teaches classes about racial profiling at that) should know that saying Pig or yo mama or This is an outrage is protected speech.

This was no case of "clear and present danger or serious substantive evil"- it was just public inconvenience (at a very minor level), annoyance (to the cop), and as for unrest, I dunno. The small crowd gathered to watch Gates' humiliation didn't seem to jump into action. The policeman made a mistake, which he shouldn't have. Gates took umbrage, as he was legally entitled to. Police aren't supposed to arrest people for hurting their feelings, or swearing at them, or even insulting their lovely mothers.

What happened here was a case of a cop overstepping his authority.

Will anyone tell me why Professor Gates was a danger or an evil in this case? He was just a citizen, grumpy about being dissed by a cop. And if Sgt Crowley was afraid of a frail man 20 years his senior...Well.
Yes, and ideally, Prof Gates should have just kept his yap shut and it would have all ended quickly and well. But he didn't do anything illegal or even wrong.

Dissed in what way? Have you looked up the definition of disorderly conduct?

 

[ziggy]

It is settled law, in a Supreme Court case decided in 1987, that:

the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=482&invol=451

It seems to me that any veteran police officer (and one who teaches classes about racial profiling at that) should know that saying Pig or yo mama or This is an outrage is protected speech.

This was no case of "clear and present danger or serious substantive evil"- it was just public inconvenience (at a very minor level), annoyance (to the cop), and as for unrest, I dunno. The small crowd gathered to watch Gates' humiliation didn't seem to jump into action. The policeman made a mistake, which he shouldn't have. Gates took umbrage, as he was legally entitled to. Police aren't supposed to arrest people for hurting their feelings, or swearing at them, or even insulting their lovely mothers.

What happened here was a case of a cop overstepping his authority.

Will anyone tell me why Professor Gates was a danger or an evil in this case? He was just a citizen, grumpy about being dissed by a cop. And if Sgt Crowley was afraid of a frail man 20 years his senior...Well.
Yes, and ideally, Prof Gates should have just kept his yap shut and it would have all ended quickly and well. But he didn't do anything illegal or even wrong.

I just have to say I could not disagree more.

I've had white crackers in my family arrested for talking back to cops and being beligerent, - oh yes, they are blonde too.

Mr. Gates should be thankful his neighbors and the cops were looking out for his best interest.

Should I start having a hissy when people ask to see my I.D. when using my Debit cArd??? NO...I actually THANK everyone who "inconveniences" me by asking because they are doing their darn job.

 

[Morrison]

It is settled law, in a Supreme Court case decided in 1987, that:

the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=482&invol=451

It seems to me that any veteran police officer (and one who teaches classes about racial profiling at that) should know that saying Pig or yo mama or This is an outrage is protected speech.

This was no case of "clear and present danger or serious substantive evil"- it was just public inconvenience (at a very minor level), annoyance (to the cop), and as for unrest, I dunno. The small crowd gathered to watch Gates' humiliation didn't seem to jump into action. The policeman made a mistake, which he shouldn't have. Gates took umbrage, as he was legally entitled to. Police aren't supposed to arrest people for hurting their feelings, or swearing at them, or even insulting their lovely mothers.

What happened here was a case of a cop overstepping his authority.

Will anyone tell me why Professor Gates was a danger or an evil in this case? He was just a citizen, grumpy about being dissed by a cop. And if Sgt Crowley was afraid of a frail man 20 years his senior...Well.
Yes, and ideally, Prof Gates should have just kept his yap shut and it would have all ended quickly and well. But he didn't do anything illegal or even wrong.

Uh huh. good old SCOTUS. What you left out is that rule only applies to peasantry like cops. Don't even THINK of having free speech when in front of a robe in a court room.