Harvard Professor Arrested--Gates Black in America

[Morag]

In the third paragraph of the police report, Sgt Crowley said that when he arrived at the scene, he spoke with Lucia Whalen who identified herself as the reporting party. He went on to say that she told him two black men with backpacks...

(Police report is at thesmokinggun.com)

 

[southcitymom]

I completely agree that no one should feel like they shouldn't fully describe a potential perp! It's a bit curious. People are fascinating.

 

[akashana]

I'm sure Ms. Whalen wouldn't, under normal circumstances, have cared a bit if her words got distorted re this report. In fact, I doubt that she would even be aware they were. But as this incident has received so much press and is on all major news sites, I can imagine that as much as she hates getting dragged into the fray, she hates it more getting dragged in and being misquoted. If I were her, I would be eager to set the record straight also at this point. I tend to think that both parties overreacted, and that is what brought us to this juncture rather than outright racism, but I can appreciate the Professor's point of view that he would probably not have been arrested were he white. And that Ms. Whalen's words are now being subtly manipulated to justify an arrest that could have been avoided. In her shoes, I would want to clarify my words too.

 

[angelmom]

The witness in question here says s/he did NOT mention "black men" to the police. (And the 911 tape, at least, confirms that the only race mentioned in the original call was "possibly Hispanic." After that, the officer and the witness disagree. The officer's notes say the witness said "two black men" during a pre-confrontation convo at the site; the witness says s/he didn't speak to the police when they first arrived. (My simple explanation: the officer mistook somebody at the site for the 911 caller.)

And the 911 caller's attorney says she is revealing all this to "clear my client's name."

I really don't get it.

If someone believes he or she sees two black men committing a crime, why is it wrong say so to the police?

Yes, I realize that on occasion witnesses mistakenly "see black" because they are culturally conditioned to expect perps to be black.

But are we all supposed to pretend we are blind to one of the most obvious physical characteristics (skin color)? Is that really the solution? Why did the 911 caller feel s/he had anything to clear up?

ITA on the part I bolded. Perhaps he spoke with the neighbor who alerted the 911 caller. She is the one who supposedly saw the men.

I think why the 911 caller has spoken up is because of some of the hateful and ridiculous comments left on many of the news articles and forums that many people were guilty of racism that day and she was the first; that perhaps if two white men had been seen with suitcases forcing a door perhaps she wouldn't have called or been as suspicious. But she was only calling because a neighbor (who you'd think might know Gates) was concerned. She was trying to be helpful and now is being smeared on some public forums.

Those comments and the attitude of many who have weighed in on this issue are really a big part of the problem here. They are screaming about something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything (why the woman called and what she said), and in doing so make victims of true discrimination and persecution look like whiners.

ETA: if, in the future, there is a real break in (which there have been recently) and no one calls LE for fear of this same treatment, it will be interesting to see the fallout.

 

[Morag]

... Perhaps he spoke with the neighbor who alerted the 911 caller. She is the one who supposedly saw the men....

In the police report, which should be the most accurate accounting of the event, Sgt Crowley said he spoke with the 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, and she told him there were two black men with backpacks.

Now it may be that she is lying, or it may be that Sgt Crowley is lying, or it may just be that he was careless with at least this part of the facts according to Crowley. At any rate, someone is incorrect as to what was said.

 

[angelmom]

In the police report, which should be the most accurate accounting of the event, Sgt Crowley said he spoke with the 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, and she told him there were two black men with backpacks.

Now it may be that she is lying, or it may be that Sgt Crowley is lying, or it may just be that he was careless with at least this part of the facts according to Crowley. At any rate, someone is incorrect as to what was said.

I agree that there is an error somewhere. What I am saying is that it may be an innocent error. The 911 caller was calling on behalf of the (elderly?) neighbor, who was concerned. It would be quite easy for Crowley to have asked, "Are you the one who saw them break in?" Or "Are you the person who reported the break in?" and for the neighbor to, accurately, say "Yes" and for him to believe he was speaking with the caller.

My point is that it really doesn't matter. Whether she said they were black or not doesn't matter; in fact, they both are black. She didn't lie, and I don't see how it is racist for her to report the truth. Trying to perceive some slight in this facet of the story feels like a witch hunt, IMHO.

Why some commenters are focusing so specifically on the 911 call is beyond me. The fact that two black men broke into this house is not in dispute.

 

[southcitymom]

... Perhaps he spoke with the neighbor who alerted the 911 caller. She is the one who supposedly saw the men....

I agree that there is an error somewhere. What I am saying is that it may be an innocent error. The 911 caller was calling on behalf of the (elderly?) neighbor, who was concerned. It would be quite easy for Crowley to have asked, "Are you the one who saw them break in?" Or "Are you the person who reported the break in?" and for the neighbor to, accurately, say "Yes" and for him to believe he was speaking with the caller.

My point is that it really doesn't matter. Whether she said they were black or not doesn't matter; in fact, they both are black. She didn't lie, and I don't see how it is racist for her to report the truth. Trying to perceive some slight in this facet of the story feels like a witch hunt, IMHO.

Why some commenters are focusing so specifically on the 911 call is beyond me. The fact that two black men broke into this house is not in dispute.

Great post, angelmom! What it seems to have done is prolong the story, which was starting to fade out a bit. I don't think anyone lied in any sort of calculating manner - it is easy enough to see that things were being perceived differently and interpreted differently by all of the players.

 

[Morag]

Oh, I don't think that anyone lied, either. But I do think that Sgt Crowley should have been more accurate in his report- it might make someone (me!) think that there were other minor errors in the report.

I've been on both sides of the police equation- my former husband was a noble policeman who was on the scene during the terrible Texas Tower slaughter in 1966, and my current husband was (falsely) accused of attacking a 6'4" cop during an anti-war demonstration back in the 60's. My hubby is the mildest and gentlest of men, and he was a 5'3" 105 pound teenaged vegetarian wearing earth shoes when he "attacked" the poor tactical policeman that day in Boston! The charges were dropped as soon as the judge saw hubby and the cop standing next to one another. BTW, I've fattened him up a bit since then, and also, BTW, he wasn't a teenager when I married him!

What I do know is that even good cops make mistakes. I assume that Crowley is a good cop, but he did make a mistake. He knew that according to Mass law (the Mulvey case*) that you can't be disorderly by yelling with only a cop or cops for witnesses. So he encouraged Gates to come onto the porch and then he arrested him. Why, if technically legal, was that a mistake? Because the next time he has occasion to defuse a situation that is truly dangerous, he may hesitate. Or if it comes to court, his reputation may be a bit sullied. He allowed his ego to take control of the situation, and now it is his judgment that will be questioned.

As for Professor Gates, no doubt he was furious and mortified to be handcuffed in front of his neighbors- and a lesser man would probably bring suit. But he's famous, respected, brilliant (they don't give those MacArthur Genius awards to slackers), and he now has more street cred with many people than he did before. Plus, he has made a lot of people talk about a subject that many of us have ignored for a long time.

Crowley is the loser in this situation, and he has no one to blame but himself.
It's not a good thing when a policeman makes himself look bad- it hurts other officers in the long run.

*http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip/appMar03i&invol=1
Use this:http://tinyurl.com/ntgmah


"...behavior that has an impact only upon members of the police force is significantly different from that affecting other citizens in at least two respects: it is an unfortunate but inherent part of a police officer's job to be in the presence of distraught individuals; and, to the extent that the theory behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the tendency of the actor's conduct to provoke violence in others, "one must suppose that [police officers], employed and trained to maintain order, would be least likely to be provoked to disorderly responses..."

 

[Nova]

In the police report, which should be the most accurate accounting of the event, Sgt Crowley said he spoke with the 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, and she told him there were two black men with backpacks.

Now it may be that she is lying, or it may be that Sgt Crowley is lying, or it may just be that he was careless with at least this part of the facts according to Crowley. At any rate, someone is incorrect as to what was said.

I don't think it's "dumping" on Sgt. Crowley to point out there are errors and discrepancies in police reports all the time. Police are trained to take notes as accurately as possible, but they aren't court reporters.

Somebody could be lying here, but my first assumption is human error.

(Edited a second time to add: "In other words, I agree with angelmom and moraq, who have said all this better.")

 

[Cappy]

I haven't read this entire thread. Please allow me a comment based on what I have read and the last few posts.

I'm a Southern woman who defied my father in the 60's and marched, demonstrated for civil rights for...not only blacks but for women also because I felt...as I do now...it was the right thing to do.

Years later with much that has pasted has not changed my mind but it's certainly caused more focus on a very different black society than we experienced way back then.

I've recently read a few articles about blacks attacking elderly whites and comments about "it's a black world now". I assumed that meant that they assumed a black President meant they could do as they wished upon whites or anyone else and it's OK

The recent events of the Harvard Professor vs the Cambridge police and Obama injecting his comments upon this domestic event suggests one thing to me: Our President is jumping the gun and assumed something that never happened. Suggesting to me that he has deep seated feelings for blacks first and whites next.

I guess, what goes around comes around????

 

[daisy7]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that he has been the victim of racial profiling but believes Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. could have been more patient with the police officer who arrested him.

At the same time, Powell also faulted the Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Department for escalating the situation beyond a reasonable level.

"I think Skip [Gates], perhaps in this instance, might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer and that might have been the end of it," Powell said in an interview with CNN's Larry King.

"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal.

"I think in this case the situation was made much more difficult on the part of the Cambridge Police Department," Powell said. "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would've thought at that point, some adult supervision would have stepped in and said 'OK look, it is his house. Let's not take this any further, take the handcuffs off, good night Dr. Gates.' "

(snipped)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/powell.palin/index.html

 

[Morag]

(snipped)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/powell.palin/index.html

Has everyone heard why they (Obama, Powell, and others) call Professor Gates "Sklp"? Chris Matthews says it is because of his limp, which he has had since injured playing touch football when he was 14. It will be interesting to see film of him standing next to the police officer.

 

[nanny1]

I don't understand why there is so much being made of this. This man's neighbor reported a possible break-in. The police show up and ask for proof that this man was the owner of the house. What were they supposed to do? Take his word for it and leave? The man's neighbors who should have recognized him reported a break-in. He didn't have to act the way he did, and he wouldn't have been arrested. Instead of acting all high and mighty when asked to prove he lived there he should have just given them the proof and been glad police were doing their job protecting his house by checking out the report called in by his neighbor.

I can just imagine what would be said if the police had said ok, you say you live here so we'll just take your word for it and leave without checking your ID. The big story then would probably be that the police didn't protect the house because it was a black man's residence.

BTW, being educated doesn't automatically giv e you a pass to behave any way you want toward the police.

You are so right.
President Obama had absolutely no right involving himself in this and only fueled the fires.

 

[nanny1]

Hi Jack,

I understand what you're saying. However, once Gates provided his driver's license which logically had the same address as the house he was breaking into on it and his Harvard I.D. (showing he is a professor), the conversation should have been like this:

"Okay, Mr. Gates, it is obvious you live here. You know we have to come out when we get called out on these things. Sorry for the inconvenience."

Even if he's getting all huffy at this point. People are allowed to get all huffy with the police and it is not a crime to do so (while I don't ADVOCATE it). I understand how Mr. Gates might have gotten really irritated once he proved to them (with his d/l that he lived at the house).

As I understand it, the police officer did not like that Mr. Gates asked him for his badge number and supervisor.

Mr. Gates ws asked to step outside prior to showing his ID and also became desorderly prior to showing his ID !!

 

[magnolia]

I totally agree with what Colin Powell (a man I have the utmost respect for) said last night on LK. One should never argue with a Police Officer. Filing a complaint is the proper protocol in a situation where you have a problem with the officer's conduct.

 

[nanny1]

Oh gal- Whites have not been subject to slavery and racism in the same manner. There is no comparison between the white and black experience. What does a student loan have to do with this?

I really need to ask this,have you been subjected to slavery ?

First let me say that I have a niece and nephew that are both African American and White,they are both loved deerly by our family. They are not treated differently than any other member of our family. When they were babies they were no accepted by thier father's family which was African American. They are now accepted by them. Well anyway's 1 day we all attended a wedding and ( 1 of many) my nephew and his friend went to the bar and ordered a drink he was African American, they were both asked for ID'S and produced them one was served and the other one wasn't. My nephew and his friend came back to the table and said that the bartender was prejudice and a racist and that's why he was not served. I found that hard to believe ,so I went up to the bartender and asked her why the other was not served,she explained that the ID that was produced was unreadable.
I checked the ID and she was absolutely right. The ID was left accidently washed in a pair of pants days before the wedding. By the way the bartender was a very nice hispanic woman. I was so angry at my nephew and his friend for falsely accusing someone of racism. This is not the first time that I have seen it used just as an excuse. I am not saying that it is the case all the time . I believe Mr. Gates has a chip on his shoulder...I also believe that the President of the US should never have gotten involved. It also bothered me to hear him say we African Americans. We are all Americans regardless of our race and color !!!

 

[Nova]

I haven't read this entire thread. Please allow me a comment based on what I have read and the last few posts.

I'm a Southern woman who defied my father in the 60's and marched, demonstrated for civil rights for...not only blacks but for women also because I felt...as I do now...it was the right thing to do.

Years later with much that has pasted has not changed my mind but it's certainly caused more focus on a very different black society than we experienced way back then.

I've recently read a few articles about blacks attacking elderly whites and comments about "it's a black world now". I assumed that meant that they assumed a black President meant they could do as they wished upon whites or anyone else and it's OK

The recent events of the Harvard Professor vs the Cambridge police and Obama injecting his comments upon this domestic event suggests one thing to me: Our President is jumping the gun and assumed something that never happened. Suggesting to me that he has deep seated feelings for blacks first and whites next.

I guess, what goes around comes around????

What goes around often does come around, but I think it's too big a leap to conclude the president is favoring one group over another. The president may have spoken prematurely. He was, after all, responding off-the-cuff to an unexpected question.

But Gates is a friend of his and hardly someone one would expect to be arrested on his own front porch. Maybe like most of us, Obama's first instinct was to defend his friend.

Or maybe like a lot of people, black and white, who are familiar with past harassment of African-Americans by police, Obama simply assumed this was another such case. One needn't be black to judge the present based on past experience; we all do that.

Obama's presumption was no more rash than those of posters here who instantly assume the police are always right and anyone arrested must deserve it. Of course, Obama is the president and it isn't unfair to expect him to show more discretion, but he is also a human being.

We all tend to identify with those we perceive to be like us, but the president has gone out of his way to make it clear he is the president of ALL Americans.

As for the incidents of black harassment of whites that you describe, I think we have to consider those isolated incidents until we see some data that proves otherwise. And let's face it: anybody who thinks a black president will instantly change social structures that were built over centuries isn't the brightest bulb on the string.

The rest of us might want to keep in mind that the black civil rights movement, as a whole, has been marked by a remarkable lack of violence on the part of most African-Americans.

 

[Nova]

Mr. Gates ws asked to step outside prior to showing his ID and also became desorderly prior to showing his ID !!

"Disorderly" is a judgment call. No one is claiming that Professor Gates threatened the officers physically nor that he called on the neighbors to do so.

It is very dangerous to simply accept LE's word on who and what is "disorderly."

 

[Nova]

I really need to ask this,have you been subjected to slavery ?

First let me say that I have a niece and nephew that are both African American and White,they are both loved deerly by our family. They are not treated differently than any other member of our family. When they were babies they were no accepted by thier father's family which was African American. They are now accepted by them. Well anyway's 1 day we all attended a wedding and ( 1 of many) my nephew and his friend went to the bar and ordered a drink he was African American, they were both asked for ID'S and produced them one was served and the other one wasn't. My nephew and his friend came back to the table and said that the bartender was prejudice and a racist and that's why he was not served. I found that hard to believe ,so I went up to the bartender and asked her why the other was not served,she explained that the ID that was produced was unreadable.
I checked the ID and she was absolutely right. The ID was left accidently washed in a pair of pants days before the wedding. By the way the bartender was a very nice hispanic woman. I was so angry at my nephew and his friend for falsely accusing someone of racism. This is not the first time that I have seen it used just as an excuse. I am not saying that it is the case all the time . I believe Mr. Gates has a chip on his shoulder...I also believe that the President of the US should never have gotten involved. It also bothered me to hear him say we African Americans. We are all Americans regardless of our race and color !!!

I don't understand the point of this sort of anecdote.

Okay, so we can all think of some occasion where an African-American (or Latino, Native American, female, gay person, etc.) mistook standard procedure for prejudice. As you say, this doesn't mean "it is the case all the time." For if we are honest, we can also think of far more examples of prejudice, conscious or unconscious; and if we don't have examples from real life, we can all read.

And so an incident with your nephew doesn't prove "Mr. Gates has a chip on his shoulder." But if he does, can't we understand why?

 

[Nova]

I totally agree with what Colin Powell (a man I have the utmost respect for) said last night on LK. One should never argue with a Police Officer. Filing a complaint is the proper protocol in a situation where you have a problem with the officer's conduct.

I too have respect for General Powell. But I don't believe he says "never argue with a Police Officer." He does say that the most practical response to racial profiling is to keep a cool head and treat the moment as educational rather than combative. And that's probably good advice in most instances and I certainly defer to the general's experience in the matter.

But "never argue with a Police Officer" is to say they should be allowed to run amok with only the vague threat of a future paper trail to hinder them.

(For the record, I have never treated a member of LE with anything but gratitude and respect, nor have I ever had occasion to do so. I think police are asked to do an impossible job and should receive the presumption of our respect. But that is not to say their actions should never be questioned.)