Posted on Saturday, 7/25/2009 - 11:25 a.m. PDT — by BBrentwood
The verdict is already out. The white officer was the victim of racism by the Ethnic Studies Professor from Harvard who attacked the officer while he was responding to a burglary call to a home that had been burglarized two weeks earlier.
To ad insult to injury we now have the assinine escalation of the incident to RACIAL PROFILING by black leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Barack Obamma
Barack Obama publically at a nationally televised news conference told America the officer acted "stupidly" without having any specifics on the case, he also mentioned RACIAL Profiling stirring up negative race relations in AMERICA.
IT IS NOT A US PRESIDENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO MEDDLE IN LOCAL CRIMINAL CASES, THEN AGAIN THE Professor is Obamas close friend. Which the professor threatened the officer with.
The officer and Police Departments across the nation are incensed that Obama made such stupid statements in a case he knew nothing about...using his Presidential position to stir up the racial pot in America........a very dangerous thing to do. Black leaders have now made this incident A BLACK ISSUE making something out of nothing.....like AL Sharpton and the
Tawanda Brawley case in the Bronx where a black teen carved racist words into her stomach accusing a white cop of rape, then admitting she did it herself....
There are corrupt officers I know this firsthand and have had my civil rights violated several times, however this is a case of black on white racism. The officer was not abusive, he did not manhandle or disrespect the Professor even while he was being racially attacked by the Ethnic Studies professor-Obamas friend. The officer did not snicker, use attitude, use a dangerous tazer or un-nessary force against the man. He acted as an ethical Peace Officer should!!! Polite even under verbal attack... not like many officers in America
The racist Ethnic Studies Professor is Wrong and Barack Obama is wrong for getting ghetto and stirring up Americas race pot. Obama was way out of line for making any comments in a local matter of which he knew no details. He has set racial relations in America back 40years.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"He has set racial relations in America back 40years."
You wouldn't lie to us with sensational out of the ballpark exaggerations would you?
Calm down fella, that's how this whole Gates vs. the Police thing got started. You shouldn't criticize Gates; actually, you both have a lot in common. Big attitudes, big egos who refuse to be considerate and reasonable.
And that doesn't have anything to do with race.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
The Ethnic studies professor shouting racial comments and then Obama in his comments outlining wide spread racial profiling in America in a nationwide news conference made "R-A-C-E" an issue, stirring the racial pot in America, not I.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT...........................the facts are the facts Who's exagerating?? Obama, the racist Harvard Professor?? that I would agree with......touche
Perhaps you should direct your use of consideration and reasonable responses to those stirring the racial pot....
The Ethnic Studies Professor and Barack Obama
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive and twist the recorded facts"
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I think you need to get a couple of your so-called "facts" correct:
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard and Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. He currently teaches two courses at Harvard (one undergraduate and one graduate): African and African American Studies 10, and African and African American Studies 301. The first provides an introduction to the key texts and issues in African and African American studies from a range of disciplinary perspectives (history, literature, anthropology and sociology, primarily). The second course is similar, but is based on undergraduate work students have completed and looks more deeply at history, literature, art, music and religion.
This all serves to suggest he is not an "ethnic studies professor".
While Barack Obama regrets use of the word "stupid" in his answer to a question at the press conference, I do not think there is any question that there is a long ... and continuing ... saga of racial profiling and inequitable focus of police actions against people of color. You have to live either in a gated community or a parallel universe to have missed that one. Racial prejudice and racial profiling by the police in our communities is a fact.
There is no question that Henry Gates vocally accused the officer of singling him out because he was black. I do not think there has been any mention of whether the white police officer accused Gates of using "racial slurs". I do not think Gates has accused the police officer of using racial slurs (but insists that he was treated differently, because he was a black man). The rest is all (so far) "he said, she said". So the "fact" of who created the racial component of this story is pretty much at issue, and not a fact at all! As a matter of fact (good play on words, heh?), the issue of race was initially raised by media pundits (who, don't you just know it, love to make anything into a controversy, if it will sell time or papers).
So who is exaggerating? A person asking you to mellow out and wait until we have all the details before drawing conclusions? I don't think so.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
I would suggest that the media reporter who asked the unrelated question during a news conference about health care was stirring the pot. Yep, our tabloid media always looking for something juicy to sensationalize so rabid people like yourself can go berserk with indignation.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
We'll never know what would have happened if the black officer standing near the porch when they cuffed Gates had been the first one on the scene (because nothing would have happened and there wouldn't be an "issue" for the drive-by-media to pursue) ... just as we may never know if he had just been cuffed, there on the porch (as officer Crowley describes it), with all those other officers standing around ... or if he had been cuffed inside the house and is being brought OUT when that picture was snapped. To me, it looks like the latter.
But your comment is absolutely right on. There are lots of people who stand to benefit by making this an "issue", and it's really easy to make into an issue because everyone is very quick to jump to conclusions consistent with their own perceptions and beliefs, regardless of what might be worked out when cooler heads are allowed to intercede.
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
The Black Officer standing near the porch is also a Sgt. in the Cambridge P.D. in fact he was interviewed yesterday along with an African American Female Officer by Don Lemon from C.N.N. Mr. Lemon prefaced this interview with them by stating to the audience that no matter what these two officers had to say he would report it accurately, Both of the Officers indicated that they stood behind Sgt. Crowley 100% The Black Officer that was on the scene indicated that Prof. Gates was totally out of hand and that the resultant arrest by Sgt. Crowley was justified.
In addition to that there is another side to this that I have no heard either on news reports or on this and other blogs, I might have missed it but here it is, A Police Officer who is dispatched to a possible burglary in progress or a break in upon reaching their destination and the homeowner is there always asks that the homeowner step outside, the reason for this is there have been many occurences where somebody made a 911 call and when the Officer of Offices arrived the homeowner would come out of the house and refuse entry to the Ofiicer due to the fact that the perpetrator was in the residence holding another member of the family hostage and telling the homeowner that he will either hurt or kill the hostage unless the homeowner gets rid of the police.
and that is why the responding officer wants to look inside the house to make sure that all is well, that there are no unauthorized persons in the house, it is a safety issue not only for the home owner but the Officers involved as well. That was the big bone of contention with Prof. Gates, he did not want Sgt. Crowley in his home, and that is what started all the back and forth verbally which resulted in Prof. Gates arrest. Prof. Gates should have thanked Sgt. Crowley for his due dilligence instead it has now become a gigantic story which appears to still have some legs to it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I have seen the interview with Sgt. Lashley (the black officer on the scene). With no disrespect intended for him, at least concede that his comments may derive from a "band of brothers" comaraderie rather than adherence to fact. Keeping in mind that most of the time this loyalty to fellow officers (firemen, soldiers, bankers, Wall Street financiers) is commendable, at times it takes on an "us vs. them" attitude that overshadows the ethic of "protect and defend", undermining professionalism and causing all sorts of mischief. Just by way of example, there is a long-running case of police brutality here in Portland in which a schizophrenic man was murdered by three police officers (massive blunt force trama, punctured lung, broken ribs) who claim he "resisted arrest" after (again, they claim) he "urinated on a tree".
I really don't give a rat's patootey what it was that Dr. Gates said to Sgt. Crowley on the porch of his own home ... handcuffing and arresting a man who posed no threat to anyone else (even the police officers) was clearly more about bullying and/or personal ego than any required act of law enforcement. Sgt. Crowley even admits, in his interview with the NBC journalist, that he waved the cuffs in Gates' face ... in effect, warning him to shut-up. Such an act is unprofessional, by any standard. Threatening arrest and taking the cuffs out as a warning might work for most people ... but a well-trained police officer, unless caught up in the heat of the moment (also an unprofessional behavior), knows that such displays often serve to provoke as much as to subdue. In fact, I have to wonder just what some of the gun-toting, "I know my rights" loudmouths on this message board would do if a police officer entered their home to challenge their right to be in it, then threatened them with arrest if they didn't just shut their mouth and be a "good boy"! If half of them are half the "men" they claim to be, this maneuver might have been like waving a red cape at the bull ... especially in a heated exchange ... and the outcome might have been much more violent than a simple arrest.
Now, do not misunderstand me. Professor Gates was way over the edge, and Sgt. Crowley had no way of knowing why he was so agitated ... unless, of course, it came up while he questioned the professor (which seems reasonable to assume that it had ... "Why ARE you breaking in if this is your own home?" seems like a reasonable line of questioning to have occurred). But once you have ascertained that he was, indeed, in his own home and had every right to be there, you simply walk away ... no matter what the guy is calling you. But no, Sgt. Crowley chose to arrest the professor. And as if that wasn't bad enough, not only did they cuff him and stuff him in a patrol car to take downtown, but then they kept him cuffed in detention for FOUR HOURS more.
Please try to understand how the not-
so-secret message in this series of events is "we are the boss, and you will follow the rules".
Should the professor have tried to find a way to cool off and not cross a line that challenged the police officer's authority? Of course. He acted very childishly. But then, so did the Sergeant. For a police officer to assume a "do as I say, or else" attitude in a non-life threatening situation goes far beyond the training that he received, or the training that he provides for younger police officers.
Please note that I have not even factored in the "chip on my shoulder" attitude that Professor Gates most likely displayed. And yet, it is this very expectation for abuse and/or unnecessary suspicion that many minority members of our culture carry with them in every police encounter ... and the fact that police tend to overly focus on behaviors of minority suspects ... that is at the root of this discussion. It would not be an issue if it did not spark recognition in the minds of black, Hispanic, young, bikers, or gay people throughout this country; and white people would not feel compelled to defend the policeman's actions if such situations were not very real.
And that's what this is all about. Perhaps a meeting of the two men in a neutral court might produce something positive to help us get beyond this "he said/she said" finger-pointing.
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
i COULD NOT HELP BUT NOTICE THAT YOU TOTALLY IGNORED THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IN MY LAST POST, BUT TOOK THE TIME TO FURTHUR MALIGN THE African American Officer by implying that he automatically threw up the so called 'blue wall" you don't know that, you are only surmising that he did and also the female Officer that Mr. Lemon interviewed.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I chose not to reply to specific parts of your message for several reasons. In the first place, neither you nor I were there (as were none of the pundits on television or the rest of the drive-by media who continue to throw fuel on this fire) and most of the details are not really known to either of us. We are responding to speculations about what happened, or speculating about what we think happened, unless we are responding to one side of the story or the other. In any of those cases, nothing is going to move beyond finger-pointing until we get all the facts out on the table. In the second place, the nature of my comment was not about specifics of the event ... I was more concerned with police professionalism, brutality and bullying, and the fact that many police officers have a lot to learn about the power that their badge gives them.
However, I will reply to the specific points about which you ask. You wrote:
In addition to that there is another side to this that I have no heard either on news reports or on this and other blogs, I might have missed it but here it is, A Police Officer who is dispatched to a possible burglary in progress or a break in upon reaching their destination and the homeowner is there always asks that the homeowner step outside, the reason for this is there have been many occurences where somebody made a 911 call and when the Officer of Offices arrived the homeowner would come out of the house and refuse entry to the Ofiicer due to the fact that the perpetrator was in the residence holding another member of the family hostage and telling the homeowner that he will either hurt or kill the hostage unless the homeowner gets rid of the police.
I am a little unclear about what you are trying to get at here ... the logic of asking the homeowner to come outside because a possible perpetrator might be inside holding hostage other family members whom he would hurt if the homeowner didn't go outside and get rid of the police seems contradictory. Furthermore, while the woman who called police reported two men at the front door (and one, ostensibly, could still have been inside holding a third party ... we don't know who this would be, since Mr. Gates had been out of town for quite a while), Sgt. Crowley makes no mention in the police report of a possible second person in the home. He did say that when he asked Mr. Gates if there was anyone else in the house, Gates yelled that it was "none of my business".
In point of fact, the police report is filled with contradictions that, when taken together with Mr. Gates' description of events, makes it evident that the police officer was lying through his teeth. He first describes him as standing in the foyer (which I take to mean that he was inside the residence), and that he could see him "through the glass paned door". Crowley says he asked Mr. Gates to step out onto the porch, which Gates refused to do. They then had a conversation (through the closed door, apparently) until Gates opened the door and continued to harangue Crowley. He reports that Gates made a phone call (possibly to the "chief"), but then says something very strange: "As he did so [made the phone call], I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative [my emphasis]."
Now, is this to mean ... as Gates testified ... that Sgt. Crowley came into the house (Gates says he went to the kitchen to retrieve his ID, and that Crowley followed him)? Isn't this exactly NOT the thing to do, according to what you wrote, above? Crowley NEXT says he asked Gates to supply him with identification, and that after initially refusing, Gates then supplied a Harvard photo ID. No explanation about how the ID was procured, but Crowley says he radioed this information on channel 2, and was about to leave (apparently, still inside the house!). At this point, we seem to have some agreement regarding the sequence of events between the two men ... Crowley says that Gates continued to hurl racial epithets at him. But now, Crowley writes that he then noticed that Officer Figueroa was standing behind him (are there TWO police officers inside of Mr. Gates house?). He then writes: "I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside the residence [emphasis again added]." He then continues to talk about walking through the foyer, the echoing of the words off the kitchen walls, leaving the residence, and that Gates followed him outside. Crowley then descended the stairs, with Gates yelling. Crowley says he warned him twice before displaying his cuffs and then, finally, placing Gates under arrest.
Officer Figueroa also filed a brief report. In his version of the story, he arrived and Crowley was already in the house. It was at this point, Figueroa reports, that Crowley shouted "Why, because I am a black man in America?" ... an epithet Crowley reported being said before he ever entered the home (though in his report, he neglected to state WHEN he entered the home, or why).
Once again, I will repeat the Sgt Crowley acted very unprofessionally. If, as you claim, it is standard policy to ask the homeowner to step outside, there is no evidence in Crowley's report that he did so. In fact, it is quite obvious that he went INSIDE the house (as Mr. Gates said). The arrest appears to have been made on the porch, where Sgt. Crowley could just as easily have kept right on walking to his car and ended the affair. Instead, he turned and told Gates to desist, then threatened him with the cuffs, then arrested him.
There ... does that address your second paragraph?
As to the code of honor thing ... I believe I will stick by my opinion. You are correct, however; I have no evidence to support my contention and make the claim simply from experience. Though I have never been arrested (though I was taken to juvenile hall one time in a case of mistaken identity), I have had many encounters with police from the point of view of me being a pariah and them sticking up for each other when one (or more) abused his (or her) power. This is not to say that ALL police officers behave this way ... my roommate in college was a criminology major (and has his BA in criminology), and I have had enough relations with police from the other side of the aisle to know that most are dedicated, honest, and hard-working public servants.
Which is why this is a potential case of bullying and and perceptions about the police as much as it is an issue related to race.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
This is Post #2 to 502PIR:
A friend of mine on a different message board, also commenting on Sgt. Crowley's police report, suggested yet a different interpretation. Because it supports my contention that Crowley ... for whatever reason ... bullied Gates and suckered him into the arrest (remember, I said he had walked off the porch and was leaving the scene and could just as easily have kept right on walking, but instead chose to turn and threaten Gates with arrest), I am going to put it up here for you to think about.
There is no dispute that Crowley entered the house, even if his report carries contradictions regarding the action and he never says exactly when, how, or why he went inside. That aside, his report, Officer Figueroa's report, and Mr. Gates' interviews all agree that the dialogue was heated and contentious inside that house. Everyone also agrees that while heated, loud, and racially contentious, the threat of violence was NEVER an issue. So ... though certainly rude, provocative and an overreaction ... there was nothing illegal about Mr. Gates' actions inside the house. He is free to yell and scream inside his home as much as he wants. That is not disorderly. The only way that Crowley could arrest Mr. Gates was if he were outside. Please note that Sgt. Crowley INVITED Mr. Gates to step outside to air his questions or grievances. Please note that Sgt Crowley twice makes reference to the gathering of police officers and civilians at the sidewalk, and the look of "concern" and "confusion" on their faces (as if he is in a position to judge the nature or the cause of their concern ... it is just as likely that they were not offended by Mr. Gates' behavior as they were at the prospect of an internationally renowned academic being harassed and possibly arrested in his own home). And please note that he had actually left the porch and was leaving before he turned around to confront Mr. Gates and ... in his best DeNiro "You talkin' to me?" pose ... threatened to arrest him if he said anything else.
So ... he couldn't arrest him IN the house, but he could get him all agitated and lure him outside to make an arrest.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Why do intelligent black men so frighten you? Why do you take an event that so clearly illustrates the racial insensitivity and mistrust that still lurks right under the surface of our culture and use it to drive stakes through whatever progress is being made. Your comments are incendiary, based strictly on belief, and do nothing to point us in a new, more positive direction. You have used one side of the story (and a whole lot of imagination) to pre-judge the event and its influence on the rest of us. Why are you so quick to pass judgment?
Let's pose this question, differently: What do you see in the now infamous photo of Henry Louis Gates, Jr, standing in handcuffs on his own front porch, shouting at the Cambridge police surrounding him as he is arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct?
Do you see a tired man, just back from a long flight from China who discovered he had misplaced the keys to his front door and then lost his composure and overreacted to an encounter with the police, and perhaps was himself to blame for escalating a simple misunderstanding? Or do you see a man understandably outraged not only by the questioning of whether he belonged in his own house, but also about just one of countless numbers of racial minorities singled out for suspicion and arrest by the police?
This event is a huge symbolic test for Americans on their attitudes toward racial discrimination. Many see a white police officer unfairly and unreasonably detaining a black man. Others (most of them, not coincidentally, white) see a wealthy college professor snapping and losing his cool, and blaming the white officer for it. The photograph, of course, shows both of these things. It's a snapshot of a moment in time. If the image is blurred, if we don't all see the same thing, it's because it's also a snapshot of the nature of race relations in this country in 2009.
Most would agree with the statement made by Barack Obama in a speech before the NAACP just a few days ago ... there is less racial discrimination in America than ever before in history. Yet despite this obvious fact, stubborn prejudices, old biases, and lingering suspicions persist. One of them is quite obvious, and sadly true almost on a daily basis ... all over America, police suspicion often falls more quickly, and lands harder, on non-whites as they go about the business of their daily lives. This is why there is such a disproportionate number of men of color serving time in our penal institutions. Every day, countless Americans (not a one of them an Ivy League professor or with close friends in important places) continue to endure more scrutiny, more suspicion, and more stressful and dangerous encounters with the police, simply because of the color of their skin.
For most of these folk, it is safer (and maybe smarter) to just shut up and accept the indignity of continuing to be questioned, even after showing identification, about whether they should be driving around in their own neighborhood (or entering their own home). Then again, some of them lose their cool and make a small incident into something much larger for us all to see. So, will we look at this incident in the face? Or will we just point fingers and use it to reinforce our own complicit attitudes that allow such behavior to continue?
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Why do intelligent black men so frighten you? Why do you take an event that so clearly illustrates the racial insensitivity and mistrust that still lurks right under the surface of our culture and use it to drive stakes through whatever progress is being made. Your comments are incendiary, based strictly on belief, and do nothing to point us in a new, more positive direction. You have used one side of the story (and a whole lot of imagination) to pre-judge the event and its influence on the rest of us. Why are you so quick to pass judgment?>
Obama knew nothing about the facts of the arrest and was quick to pass judgment by referring the actions of the police department as "stupid". That hardly points us in a new or positive direction and reinforces the belief that Obama (and others of his political beliefs) will fall back on the "racism" explanation regardless of circumstances.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
And, unlike others on this board (and in the drive-by media), Obama has said his use of the word "stupid" was inappropriate, serving to escalate the controversy and stir things up.
Personally, I think he was 100% correct. Once Mr. Gates showed his picture ID to Sgt Crowley and Officer Figueroa, the situation was over. There is no reason that Mr. Gates needed to be arrested, and the fact that the charges were dropped supports that contention. The fact that people need to keep talking about this event ... most in coded or guarded words, only a few directly ... suggests the scars and unresolved issues that it represents.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
Multiple media outlets have reported the facts, statements ad-nauseum. A person in high office should not make any comments in local matters not having all the facts. So because he's Barack Obama we have to give him a pass?? Dont think so.
During the pre-election he spoke of Uniting People, his recent comments regarding Police Racial profiling in America, do not lend to Uniting anything, just the opionions of millions in America.
As for the Ethnic Studies Chair at Harvard, we all heard the 911 tape in detail this weekend. This inicident will be thorn in Barack's side, along with the racially incidiary statements his lifelong Pastor made which were also telivised nationwide prior to the election .
Thats all folks.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
This incident is a "thorn" only to people who love to keep the fires of hatred burning in their heart, or who find pleasure in stoking the still simmering fires of mistrust that infest the soul of this nation.
Joined: Sep 2008
Current Posts: 96
A report of "two" people breaking in? And you think the sergeant only needs to verify one living there? What about the second one? It's up to the officers on the scene to solve the problem NOW.... and in a safe manner. If someone is interfering with my investigation, they'll be handcuffed, too. and maybe arrested for PC 148.5 (in California)..... and I don't care what race/creed/color/sexual orientation they are.
Unless you were there and have ALL of the facts at hand, all you're doing is armchair-quarterbacking.
How many years of police experience do YOU have? Handcuffing a person is NOT an arrest - it's only a temporary restraint to allow the officer to complete his investigation. The arrest was not "wrong". As anyone in law enforcement knows, the arrest can be changed to detention only (PC 849.5 for California).
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
And as we now know, the report of two people breaking into the home on Ware street made no mention of their ethnicity or nationality. This is just one of the "facts" that the arresting officer invented when he filed the police report (to cover his arrogant little behind). The officer had determined that there was no one else in the home (he was not "detaining" Mr. Gates for that reason), and ... again according to his police report ... had concluded the investigation and was leaving the premises. He had stepped off the porch and was in the yard, with his BACK TO Mr. Gates. There was no "investigation" with which to interfere. Sorry, Fred ... this is a case where a police officer over-reacted (in response to an over-reacting citizen, to be sure).