Crowley vs. Gates

Remove all ads!

T2,
to me the difference is simple. The police exercises state authority. They are bound to the law. To give them basically discretionary arrest powers under the label of 'public disturbance' as far as immediate protest against police action is concerned is ill advised and invites abuse for all the reasons I cited.

I don't think we disagree all that much. Personally I am very cooperative with the police. It is just that I maintain every right not to be if the need arises. It is a choice I make and a right that I have. You appear to be assuming that the police has the benefit of a doubt and is always acting in good faith. These assumptions are not always warranted. I primarily think that you're giving more deference to authority than is due.

My beef here is primarily with the notion to penalise protest against what might well be abuse of powers, and the uncritical attitude towards it.

Taken to the extreme, a cop could rape or rough up a woman, and then, afterwards, when she starts making a great fuss about it, arrest her for public disturbance because of her totally uncivil and inappropriate screaming. That is ultimately where you get when you penalise legitimate protest against police misconduct on grounds that it doesn't meet etiquette. Misconduct is usually an uncivil action that yields an uncivil response. Misconduct also destroys trust. It asks a little much of a citizen to cooperate with, that is, trust in, a police officer who has just abused or treated badly said citizen.

Whether Gates was treated in a racist way or not - if you deny him the right to complain in any but the meekest way, you invite police abuse. I rather have a few people ranting, than cops getting away with abuse. Also, if the citizen is lucky, his protest will draw witnesses, and deter a violation of rights. Sometimes crowds are a good thing.

 

Yes. How many cops have been caught on citizen video during the blatant abuse of authority? On the one hand, some argue that being in pubic view is safer for cops, while the same can be argued for the private citizen as well. There is no good reason that cops should object to a cititzen drawing a crowd, unless the cops have something to hide.

 

Yes, Ragusa, that is how the ideal citizen should act. Mind you, that's the ideal, not a realistic model, and I'm all for allowing a little emotional leeway, but Gates was really pushing it on that leeway.

There's a difference between adult and reasonable protest and throwing a tantrum like a 5-year-old.

No, I'm just pointing out that context plays a major role. As you said, the courts are likely far better informed on context than we are, so it's up to them to rule (if it ever goes there). Context is all to often forgotten, and your posts seemed to have been making light of context (I could have read that into them, though).

Ragusa, strawmen don't become you. The very point we were trying to make is that reasonable measures to limit risk are, by definition, reasonable. The question of whether or not Gates' arrest was reasonable is the next logical issue to be decided.

At the same time, your belittlement of escalation and "abstract dangers" (I prefer to call them potential dangers) suggests you think it best that the police wait until someone has been shot to take the situation seriously. After all, even a loaded gun pointed at an officer isn't a material danger unless the situation escalates and it goes off (an abstract potential). There is a middle ground betweenn the two extremes. That's where most people live their daily lives.

 

It is totally awesome that there is a middle ground between the two extreme where most people live their daily lives - it doesn't have any bearing on you not getting it that Gates didn't commit a public disturbance, and that that is so for a very good reason.

Obviously I didn't say it clear enough: My 'ban everything' was not a straw man but an attempt to illustrate to you a thing that continues to escape your attention: That there are things, like free speech and the interest of preventing of abuse of power, that in legal systems that emphasise liberty and personal freedom, outweigh, greatly, aspects of the prevention of abstract dangers.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. It is because nobody can be certain the quality of police officer they will get that deference is always shown (that, and actually having respect for the position). It is foolish in the extreme to assume police will not respond in force to being taunted and ridiculed. Such is life.

For the average citizen, the police officer will always trump them in court. It is prudent to never put yourself in that position.

That said, the vast majority of police officers do a great job and only want to help people. It is entirely appropriate to give deference to those working as police officers -- whether out of respect for the job they do or out of fear for what they can do (and sometimes get away with). I cannot see any occasion where deference to a police officer is a bad thing. Even if the officer is committing a crime, you must still respect the weapons he wields.

 

Survival dictates that, yes, but I also have to respect the gun that a robber wields. The conclusion of your post is hardly reassuring.

 

That comes down to whether or not the individual is willing to trade his liberties for security (the absence of danger or risk). There are many who are not willing to make that trade, thank God.

Edit:

That comes down to the police and the private citizen working together, rather than against each other. I think there are some, on both sides, who only see this relationship from an adversarial perspective.

 

Actually, I recognized that several posts ago, when I thanked you for posting the details of the ruling that said no aspect of speech could be the trigger for a public disturbance arrest.

Really? Then why is it illegal to advocate violence? Why is it illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (assuming there isn't a fire, at least)? The fact is that we compromise on everything, including freedoms. We don't have absolute freedom of speech, or of the press, or of religion, or a guarantee of personal or public safety. We could have any one of those, maybe even two or three, but it'd be a very disfunctional society. Instead, we balance all of them.

And I bet you wouldn't run out of the house after the armed robber taunting him about breaking the law and how you're going to put his a** in jail, either.

 

Curiously, I must have missed the part where Gates advocated violence and where he yelled fire. All I remember him complaining about was racism. Is loudly complaining about racism, in reaction to police conduct, the same thing as the prank of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence against the police? Is that in your mind equivalent? Well, it is not, and, persistent as ever, you're comparing apples and oranges again - to find they're in fact peas.

Well, apparently under Massachusetts law better than in your mind. The Massachusetts courts found that society remained functional when not applying the disorderly conduct law on reactions to and protest against police actions.

 

Ragusa, as we've moved into a more general discussion of rights and responsabilities, I was applying my statement to general circumstances, as you were applying the statements I responded to.

 

We know you were being general, but the Gates incident is specific. Since your generalities clearly don't actually apply to this specific incident, they don't back up your argument that the police were justified in arresting him.

 

That's because that's not my arguement any more. It hasn't been since post #137. Just to make this clear for you all, Ragusa was right. Crowley had no justification for arresting Gates.

 

I then owe you an apology. I over read the intro to #137 because there were references to Chandos' posts all over the place.

 

I know the feeling. I've skimmed a few posts from time to time, often to come back later in the thread thinking, "Wait... I must have missed soomething."

Mind you, I still think Crowley was being a complete idiot, but he had a right to do so it seems.

 

Ah. Mea culpa.

 

Personally I think Gates was acting stupidly. Provoking a police officer, provoking an armed man, is my ultimate definition of a stupid act.

Crowley, on the other hand, is widely respected as a police officer and his adherance to applying the laws evenly to everyone. Every department has rules, regulations, and guidelines for officers to follow. Crowley was a trainer -- as such he was probably also one of the best trained officers on the force (trainers typically are). I firmly believe he was following guidance of the department; there is line drawn in the sand that define arrest/non-arrest for public disturbance (and harrassing an officer). Crowley warned Gates twice when he crossed that line, then arrested in in accordance with departmental guidelines (an opinion supported by statement by the department and union).

I also believe that had anyone without similar political connections acted the same as Gates, that person would be standing trial and probably lose. The precident Ragusa found could easily be interpreted very narrowly and a decent prosecuting attorney would be able to show differences in circumstances of the two cases.

What Crowley lacked was judgement.

Large police forces do not want their individual officers using judgement -- the departments want police officers who will rigidly follow the guidelines set forth by the experienced upper eschelon of the force (much like many on the boards believe lawful good should be played). An individual officer's judgement incorporates bias into the picture which the force cannot tolerate.

Crowley, by all accounts, is an excellent officer -- the epitome of the impartial peace keeper who equally administers the law. IMO, he showed a lack of judgement with his extemely poor introduction which should have put Gates at ease, but instead caused fear. Crowley showed a lack of judgement when he decided to use threat as a means of diffusing the situation, which instead fanned to fire to a 'pompous ass who knew he had done nothing wrong' (I speak from experience on that one). He also showed a lack of judgement in underestimating the political fall out from arresting a well-connected Harvard professor.

But Crowley, IMO, was not supposed to use such judgement; he was to follow the guidelines of the department and Gates crossed the line in the sand drawn by the upper eschelon. Crowley did nothing wrong; he followed his guidelines to the letter. Such issues are sorted out by the department and district attorney after the fact -- and it was.

I really don't think there will be any changes because of this. There may be some "sensitivity training" for officers to give them skills in putting citizens at ease but no policy changes.

My assessment: Gates acted stupidly and was arrested for crossing a line he was warned about. Crowley acted with poor judgement and did everything wrong in diffusing a situation but did nothing illegal. Both men should shoulder appropriate responsibility for their part in this. And Gates should be ashamed of himself for the example he set.

 

I have little to add about Gates, but considering the Massachusetts courts banning the application of disorderly conduct on protest Crowley not only lacked judgement. He applied the law in an unconstitutional way. He had no right to arrest Gates because Gates had done nothing illegal.

That he was probably provoked into doing that by Gates behaviour is another matter entirely. As a cop, it is Crowley's job to not be provoked by what is a rightful exercise of citizen rights.

I am perfectly aware that this is still essentially a triviality. I also largely agree that Gates from an objective ex post perspective acted stupidly - but then, hindsight is always 20/20, and that applies to Gates as much as to Crowley. The ability to remain calm and rational under stress is relatively rare. Crowley is trained (and employed) for such situations, Harvard professors arguably aren't. One should be careful holding the two to the same standard as far as cool headedness is concerned. That is in my eyes the implication of distributing the share of blame equally here.

For the record Between me and NOG there is probably little disagreement on the point that freedoms, like freedom of speech, are not unlimited. Of course yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not a protected exercise of free speech, and inciting a crowd to commit violence isn't protected by free speech either. It's just that Gates did none of these things. I felt it necessary to stress that to the fullest. The reason was that when talking about Gates, and then invoking, say, the spectre of the impending end of civilisation as we know it if abstract dangers aren't kept at bay - that sounded in my ears and in that context quite shrill.

 

I would not use the term "stupidly," but rather that he overreacted. He was too emotional in a situation that required an objective solution. Of course, I can't walk in Gates' shoes, an older black man who has experienced the civil rights movement and has been the subject of racial profiling in the past. While we've come a long way, I imagine those scars still run pretty deep. Law enforcement's track record with blacks is not very helpful.

Most citizens are not accustomed to the notion that an armed cop is going to whip out his gun and start shooting if he feels insulted. If that's the case, let's send all of them home now, because if that's the situation we have the crooks to do that instead.

 

Of course we should hold Gates to the same standard as Crowley. All people, no matter their profession, should keep a cool head at all times. Especially when dealing with others. It's not always easy, but we do have minds of our own and can control our actions. There is no excuses for that type of behaviour. The most important part of society is our freedoms. They are only kept intact by our ability to police ourselves, using law enforement and personal self-restraint. People are people, no matter what, whether your a cop, a professor or a garbage man. We are all expected to treat each other in a lawful, respectful way. If not, we are taking steps backwards as a whole. He made his protests and the cops were leaving. He then should of brought any protest or complaints up in or at another forum.

 

Chandos: My point is you don't know if you have a good cop or ... a person who should never be a cop. It's like when my (now adult) daughter was perhaps ten or so and she learned the basics of pedestrian right-of-way (before that she was following the 'if a car is coming don't cross' parent rules). Her belief was 'they have to stop for me it's the law' -- my comment back was 'if they don't stop they'll get a ticket, or perhaps go to jail.' My daughter responded with something like a triumphant 'that's right.' But she got quiet when I finished with, 'but you will be dead.'

Ragusa: I have also read Commonwealth v. Lopiano and see distinct differences in the circumstances of the two events. The prosecution (and judges instructions to the jury) used a much narrower definition of disorderly conduct than is in the legal code -- the conduct of the defendent fell outside that narrow definition and so the decision was reversed (and rightfully so). However, the conduct of Gates did fall within the legal statute (particularly 1(b)) and so was not unconstitutional. The case may have been able to further define the law, but we'll never know.

As I said, police officers follow the guideline of the department -- a vague ruling by a judge will not change departmental policy.