![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsHow is it that there are all these liberal bloggers wringing their hands over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates in his own home, and yet not a single one of them has yet used the phrase "new professionalism?"
elfs
elfs
Profile
Elf Sternberg
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Style Credit
- Base style: ColorSide by branchandroot
- Theme: NNWM 2010 Fresh by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 11:40 pm (UTC)In Gates' first statements to the press he said that he refused to provide identification "as a matter of principle", but then later provided his Harvard ID. Gates has now changed his story to state that he "immediately and happily" provided his Harvard ID. So which time was Gates telling the truth?
But that begs the question "Why did he choose his Harvard ID?" The New York Times asks "Why did the police officer even hang around after he saw Professor Gates' ID giving that address as his residence?"...but that's not the case. Despite the fact that Gates had literally just returned from a trip to China and therefore definitely had his passport handy (and probably his driver's license as well) he instead chose to provide an ID that did NOT contain his home address, requiring that Sgt. Crowley contact the Harvard Police to confirm that Gates was indeed the resident of the home. (I'm sorry, but the fact that you work for Harvard does not mean that you didn't break into someone else's home...Harvard employees have been convicted of numerous crimes over the years)
So instead of being cooperative, as he claims, it would appear that Gates intentionally tried to escalate the situation. He went out of his way to antagonize and inconvenience the police in the performance of their duties and then cried about the fact that they inconvenienced him in return. I'd say that 4 hours of his time and a ride downtown and back was the price he chose to pay when he decided that instead of being cooperative and helpful, he would waste their time and make their jobs as difficult as possible. It's no different than if I'm stopped while driving and refuse to take a breathalyzer test here in Nevada. While it is perfectly within my rights to do so, I have to accept that that choice carries with it the cost that I will be arrested, taken to the hospital for a blood test, and then released with the charges dropped after I pass the test. When Gates chose to provide identification that did not show residence at that address he should have expected to be arrested and held until the police could verify that it was indeed his home.
LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 12:03 am (UTC)1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
8) You seem to have no idea what really happened. Read the officer's report, linked above. Professor Gates was hooked up for disorderly conduct, an arrest since repudiated by the police and the district attorney.
There was no question that it was the Professor's home. You seem to believe that contempt of cop justifies arrest. Fortunately we live in a nation of laws, not of men.
Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 12:59 am (UTC)1) "Congress" did none of those things, nor were any of those rights infringed by any party in this case. (and I'd suggest Cornell Law as a far better Constitutional source than Wikipedia)
4) He was not subject to an unreasonable search or seizure. Police responded to a break-in report and the moron acted like a criminal rather than a reasonable homeowner.
8) That's twice you have claimed that others don't know what happened or don't have the facts, yet you have provided no data of your own. I have read the police report, as well as Gates' multiple statements and the statements of witnesses present. All agree on the facts except for Gates' ever changing account. The arrest was not repudiated (as you claim) by either the department or the district attorney. Charges were dropped. There's a difference between not continuing with charges once more evidence has been obtained and saying that the arrest was improper in the first place. In many cases, including this one, arrest is entirely appropriate while the facts are being sorted out.
And there was most certainly a question of whose home it was. Show me where anyone, including Gates, ever says that the question of whether or not he lived there was resolved by any evidence other than the shouted claims of an obviously irrational man.
Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 08:43 pm (UTC)Wikipedia | Harvard biography
1) Your ignorance of Constitutional law apparently includes the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I don't feel compelled to use academic sources to correct gross errors of fact. Professor Gates was engaged in political speech protected under the 1st Amendment when he was arrested for disorderly conduct. The protections of the Constitution certainly do apply to the acts of local government.
4) His person was seized. His home was invaded and it is a point of strong dispute between the parties whether the police officer doing the invading identified himself at the time. The exigent circumstances entry by the police officer was reasonable. It remains to be seen whether his conduct was reasonable.
Note especially that Professor Gates is not held to the same standard as a serving peace officer, particularly in his own home.
8) Professor Gates characterizes the report as complete fiction. It is not surprising that the police report and the additional statement from a witness officer are consistent with each other. Hopefully more light will be shed on this matter as Cambridge PD releases 911 tapes and radio recordings.
I have linked to original source material which you claim to have reviewed.
Your inability to grasp the concept that the arrest had NOTHING to do with a real or suspected burglary and EVERYTHING to do with whether or not Professor Gates engaged in "loud, tumultuous" conduct in public, is strongly suggestive that you have not so much as glanced at the report, let alone read it.
See "Incident Type / Offense" in the upper left hand corner of the 1st page of the report.
Charles says >> The arrest was not repudiated (as you claim) by either the department or the district attorney.
The charges were dropped prior to the first court date and review of additional evidence. Look at 3a) in the dictionary definition linked above. "3 a: to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force"
Press Release
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.
This was not the DA failing to pursue for lack of evidence. This was the city (and police, a creature of the city) formally asking the DA to please not proceed.
Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 11:02 pm (UTC)4) Sorry, but you can not claim arrest in and of itself as "his person was seized" and immediately jump to "unlawful search and seizure". Arrest and search after the commission of a misdemeanor in the presence of a police officer is not "unreasonable search and seizure". See Knowles v. Iowa (1998).
8) It's interesting that you take Gates' assertion that the police report is fiction as justification to disregard the facts laid out in the police report, while then taking one of the statements made by gates (he made several conflicting statements) as absolute fact. You obviously have made up your mind which "facts" you want to cherry pick. So far we have two separate police officers and two citizen witnesses at the scene (so far only two have made public statements as to what they observed take place outside Gates' home) that agree and only Gates' statement that conflicts. I'll tend to lean towards the 4 statements that agree (especially since two of them and uninvolved observers) over the statements of the accused (very few criminals agree with the police statement as to what happened) who also stands to benefit both professionally and financially from the situation.
The arrest was not repudiated. To use your own definition that would be "to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force". The Police Commissioner has made a public statement specifically confirming that the arrest was proper. The only person in authority to disagree is the Mayor - and elected politician who has no authority or experience to evaluate police procedure. The press release you quote simply says that the incident was "unfortunate and regrettable", not unauthorized or improper. If, for example, you killed someone and were arrested for it - the incident would be "unfortunate and regrettable" for many parties involved (you, the victim, the police, your family) while still being 100% valid.
As for "lack of evidence" you seem ignorant of normal prosecution procedure. The first step in determining whether there is enough evidence to proceed is a recommendation from the police department.
Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 11:41 pm (UTC)Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-25 12:05 am (UTC)Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 08:44 pm (UTC)OK, idiot. The police report in several places and Professor Gates' attorney.
Police report, page 2, "While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited towards me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at XX Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."
Lawyer's public statement:
Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information.
Note that the residence is the property of Harvard College and not of Professor Gates as an individual. Therefore, it was appropriate for Professor Gates to show a Harvard ID card and for the Cambridge officer to summon Harvard University Police.
Later in the police report, after the arrest, "Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was."
The question of whether Gates was a lawful resident was resolved before the officer left the interior of the residence.
Re: LOL
Date: 2009-07-24 11:27 pm (UTC)The police report never says that any identification with the address on it was supplied. It only indicates that the Harvard ID (which does not include the address - even the lawyer's statement confirms that) was supplied. The police report does say "...was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence...", which only means that Gates claimed to live there but had not corroborated it. Similarly, the police officers were "led to believe" that a break-in had occurred and were attempting to corroborate that as well. It would be an interesting world though if you had your way and the police had to take the statement of every suspect at face value...just think how many fewer cops and courts and jails we'd need if the police took it at face value whenever a suspect said "I didn't do nuthin", "Honest officer, it's my stereo", or "He was already dead when I got here"
As the the lawyer's public statement, I have to say thank you for linking it. I had missed that Gates has now made a third conflicting claim as to when and how he identified himself. The claim that he provided a driver's license is a new one and is in conflict with the statements of both police officers and, amusingly enough, both of Gates' previous statements (the first where he said he initially refused to produce ID as a matter of principle, and the second where he just said that he immediately provided his Harvard ID).