I don't get why the cops took so long to release these. There's nothing especially damning here for either side.
A few points:
1. The issue of race doesn't come up until the 911 dispatcher asks. The caller describes them as "larger" (Gates is 5'7" and 150 pounds) and says one "might be hispanic." Crowley writes in his police report that the witness told him that there were "two black males with backpacks." I guess Crowley was told a different story when he got to the scene. But that's really, really odd given that the 911 call and Crowley arriving on the scene were moments apart. That she would be inaccurate is not a surprise given that she was looking at their backs for just a few minutes. That she would be inaccurate one way and minutes later be inaccurate a different way is kinda weird.
2. The suitcases are mentioned by the caller from the beginning, and are mentioned on the police radio. No one talks about backpacks on the tapes. Again, this differs from Crowley's report, but he could just have been told different things or reported inaccurate facts.
3. Crowley said in his report that he radioed from inside the house to say the man was being "uncooperative" and that is born out by the tape. He later told the New York Times that he had to step outside because Gates was being loud. Crowley's voice is VERY clear on the tapes, and Gates' is a blur in the background. At one point, it sounds like he says "No, I want..." but otherwise, his voice is an inaudible blur. It's not at all clear whether he's talking or shouting. If he is shouting, it's certainly not loud enough to make ANYTHING Crowley is saying inaudible. So yeah, Crowley's excuse that Gates was being so loud that it was "making it difficult to transmit pertinent information to the ECC or other responding units" does not seem to be true. The 911 caller has to repeat herself more than Crowley does.
4. I don't see anything in Gates' version that is contradicted directly by the tape, though Gates doesn't really talk about the times that the officer was talking on his radio, so that's not a big surprise.
5. The caller says of the two men "So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there." I guess it was just a slip of the tongue. But it made me sad to wonder if, for a moment, she saw two big guys, one of them hispanic, and assumed they must be either breaking in or carting the luggage of the REAL guy who lived there as it reminded me of a story Will Shetterly posted about Gates buying a fancy house in Raleigh, NC, then being constantly assumed to be the help when he was in it, with workers on the renovation he was doing asking him to point them to the owner.
So that's that. I don't think the tapes really show all that much and I wonder what the fuss about releasing them was.
CC
23 comments:
I heard something on the radio that might explain the discrepancies in #1 & 2: there were two witnesses to the "break in"; one was on the 911 call, and the other was not. The first person Crowley spoke to on the scene was not the one on the phone.
Nothing on the 911 tapes, or any other revelations I've heard has changed my first impression: Gates was being a dick, so Crowley was being a dick right back. The issue was not race, but the cop's way-too-common belief that "dissing a cop" is the ultimate crime. My own brother was arrested for resisting arrest some 30 years ago. When the judge heard that there were no original charges to be resisting, and that the only physical contact that occured was when the cuffs were slapped on my brother, the charges were dropped... but he had spent the night in jail.
The caller does mention another woman being there and this other woman being more concerned about what was going on, too.
I was confused by which caller was which, too, and almost noted it until I saw that Crowley directly refers to Whalen as the 911 caller in his report and says that Whalen told him it was Whalen who called.
But you're right, that could somehow be yet another mistake on his part.
((The issue was not race, but the cop's way-too-common belief that "dissing a cop" is the ultimate crime. )))
That's my general take, too.
That said, I would be interested to know how the men ended up being black in Gates' police report and whether Gates has ever arrested a white guy for "dissing." I don't think this issue was entirely a racial one, but I'm not ready to say those dynamics didn't come in to play in how ready Crowley was to arrest Gates.
CC
"I've heard has changed my first impression: Gates was being a dick, so Crowley was being a dick right back."
There is no question that professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.* was being a dick to Sgt. Crowley. There is little evidence that Sgt. James Crowley was a "dick" towards The Naughty Professor* unless the simple fact of arresting him on disorderly conduct charges for engaging in behavior that matches the letter of Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct statute, after several warnings that he should calm down, constitutes being a "dick". Heck Sgt. Crowley even initially described the *suspect* Henry Louis Gates as "the gentleman" until he found out to his chagrin that Gates was indeed a scholar but by no means a gentleman. . .
* Are't you glad that I didn't say The Nutty Professor CC? ;-)
"But it made me sad to wonder if, for a moment, she saw two big guys, one of them hispanic, and assumed they must be either breaking in or carting the luggage of the REAL guy who lived there"
Um CC. . . at least one of them *was* carting the luggage of the REAL guy who lived there.
Why "read" racist motivations into the callers description when there is little reason to do so?
Again, the MA courts have not found that yelling at someone in your front yard is disorderly conduct under the law. That's one reason why the charges were dropped the minute they were put in front of an actual lawyer.
As I explained to you at Will Shetterly's blog, a football game is almost certainly disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law for players, cheerleaders and cheering fans alike, so it comes to the courts to interpret what the law means. They have not interpreted it to mean what you say it means and their opinions make the decision, not yours.
CC
What part of *the letter* of the law do you fail to understand CC? Like you I even raised the question of the constitutionality of this law as it is *written*.
(((Why "read" racist motivations into the callers description when there is little reason to do so?))
Because it fit so perfectly with what Gates had experienced before, though I did say clearly that it was probably just a slip of the tongue.
CC
(((What part of *the letter* of the law do you fail to understand CC? Like you I even raised the question of the constitutionality of this law as it is *written*.)))
There's no reason to be so rude. We're just having a conversation.
Unless you can prove that Crowley runs around arresting football players, then he follows the court's reasoning most of the time.
What made this situation different?
Some say "class," some say "race," some say "police officer got his feelings hurt" but nobody is saying anything that makes the arrest sound reasonable.
CC
CC
The following is not condescending and snarky CC?
"They have not interpreted it to mean what you say it means and their opinions make the decision, not yours."
Do you think I am unaware that it is not my decision to interpret Massachusetts law?
If you get condescending and snarky with me don't be surprised if I return the favor. . .
Maybe nobody is saying anything that makes the arrest sound reasonable to *you* but I can assure you that hundreds and thousands of Americans are saying that the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. on disorderly conduct charges sounds quite reasonable to *them*. . . Feel free to troll around the internet to let them know that you believe that they are wrong in that belief. You could make a career out of it right now. . .
If you understand that the courts make the decisions on what the law means, not the person who is reading the law, then I'm not certain why you would bring up the letter of the law at all.
It isn't relevant and is misleading since it makes it look like it's OK to arrest football players and other people who are making noise on private property, but not actually threatening anyone, inciting violence or doing anything else that would make the arrest make sense.
CC
(((hundreds and thousands of Americans are saying that the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. on disorderly conduct charges sounds quite reasonable to *them*)))
Of course, they don't make the decision, the courts do. And he wasn't arrested for anything that the courts have found to be worth arresting for.
CC
I should mention that those people have to power to work to change the law, provided they are from Massachusetts.
If they were to write, call and visit their legislators and demand that "screaming on private property" be made illegal, then they probably could.
But I think they would miss football.
CC
You're being disingenuous, to say nothing of quite ridiculous, CC.
:If you understand that the courts make the decisions on what the law means, not the person who is reading the law, then I'm not certain why you would bring up the letter of the law at all.
I obviously do understand that the courts make the decisions on what the law means CC. I brought up the letter of the law because I am not sure that police officers are filled in on all court precedent and generally refer to the *letter* of the law when making arrests etc. God knows that if the police were aware of legal precedent I almost certainly never would have been arrested for disrupting a religious service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Right CC? Every time I have been arrested or ticketed, falsely or otherwise, it is as a result of police officers referring to the letter of the law not legal precedent of how that law has been interpreted in the courts.
:It isn't relevant and is misleading
What I said is neither irrelevant or misleading. What is irrelevant and misleading to say nothing of disingenuous is the following example of U*U BS -
"since it makes it look like it's OK to arrest football players and other people who are making noise on private property, but not actually threatening anyone, inciting violence or doing anything else that would make the arrest make sense."
(((hundreds and thousands of Americans are saying that the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. on disorderly conduct charges sounds quite reasonable to *them*)))
:Of course, they don't make the decision, the courts do.
I am perfectly aware of that CC.
:And he wasn't arrested for anything that the courts have found to be worth arresting for.
That may or may not be so. How do you know that other people have not been arrested on the same charge for similar behavior and have had the charge stick?
:I should mention that those people have to power to work to change the law, provided they are from Massachusetts.
No you shouldn't because I know that too. Any citizen of any state has that power but few exercise it.
:If they were to write, call and visit their legislators and demand that "screaming on private property" be made illegal, then they probably could.
According to the *letter* of the MA DC law it would seem that "screaming on private property" already *is* illegal in MA, especially if the person doing the screaming does so loud enough to annoy his and/or her neighbors. . .
:But I think they would miss football.
If people were to write, call and visit their legislators and demand that football be made illegal, then they probably could. . . Or am I just disingenuously talking through my hat CC?
(((I brought up the letter of the law because I am not sure that police officers are filled in on all court precedent and generally refer to the *letter* of the law when making arrests etc.)))
When you bring me an example of Crowley's police department arresting people playing football for disorderly conduct, I will believe that.
Heck, I will accept disorderly conduct arrests for parents yelling at teenage children, couples arguing in their yard, cheerleaders practicing, anything.
Surely Gates isn't the first person in Massachusetts to yell in his front yard. If Massachusetts cops are interpreting the law by the letter there has to be lots of proof.
((That may or may not be so. How do you know that other people have not been arrested on the same charge for similar behavior and have had the charge stick?))
Because I checked Lexis-Nexis the day I wrote the FAQ and the closest case on point in Massachusetts had a guy yelling at police in in his driveway and that one was dismissed. There were a few differences in the facts, but the courts went out of the way to point out that the point of disorderly conduct was that it was a public nuisance and that conduct of private property will almost never qualify.
But if you'd rather hear it from a real lawyer, you can look at the responses from lawyer that Andrew Sullivan got.
(((According to the *letter* of the MA DC law it would seem that "screaming on private property" already *is* illegal in MA, especially if the person doing the screaming does so loud enough to annoy his and/or her neighbors. . .)))
Again, not really because the courts have determined that the law doesn't mean that and courts rely on precedent.
Once they've decided what a law means, they don't like to change their minds.
For a simple example, let's say that there's a law that says you have to paint your house "A calming color found in nature such as green, brown or gray."
You paint your house bright pink. When the police write you a citation, you fight the citation in court, claiming that some people find the color bright pink calming, and that some flowers found in nature are bright pink, so you should be allowed to keep your house bright pink.
The court decides against you. You take it to the appeals court and the appeals court decides in your favor. They agree that what color is calming is a matter of opinion and that the colors of flowers are found in nature.
From that point on, the law effectively MEANS that painting your house bright pink is legal.
The next guy to paint his house bright pink doesn't have to take it to court. When he gets a citation, then all he has to do is submit a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the appeals court has already determined that bright pink houses are legal.
If the town wants to make painting the house bright pink illegal, they need to pass a new law specifically barring flower-colored houses or something like that.
(((If people were to write, call and visit their legislators and demand that football be made illegal, then they probably could.))
Probably, assuming there wasn't sufficient opposition.
But they would NOT be able to call for the police to start arresting football players based on the old law since the courts have already decided that's not what it means.
CC
hundreds and thousands of Americans are saying that the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. on disorderly conduct charges sounds quite reasonable to *them*
A polled majority of Americans think expressive flag-burning (i.e. desecrating the flag in order to express a protest against government) should be illegal. The fact that people think something should be illegal -- and in particular, think it should be illegal when done by someone whom they don't like -- doesn't make it illegal. Citing the fact that they think so, in a discussion of legality, is utterly useless.
Police officers, like anyone else with state power (from President Obama on down), will want to expand the scope of their power. Not out of malice, usually, but because they believe in their own capacity to use that expanded power for good. After all, wouldn't it be a nicer world if people didn't go around yelling and protesting? That's so very disruptive and annoying.
The whole point of having a Constitution is to limit the otherwise ever-expanding power of the state, and to require lasting super-majorities to remove those limits (which is why a Constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration never has passed -- they can get a simple majority but not a super-majority). When the courts interpret the "letter of the law" wrongly, Americans repeatedly have responded by passing Constitutional amendments that specify what the law will be. This began with the 11th Amendment, passed and ratified to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia.
If knowing the law were as simple as reading a statute and interpreting however one's personal bias may lead (particularly when given particular facts that one wishes to reach a particular outcome on), law school would be a serious waste of time.
"A polled majority of Americans think expressive flag-burning (i.e. desecrating the flag in order to express a protest against government) should be illegal. The fact that people think something should be illegal -- and in particular, think it should be illegal when done by someone whom they don't like -- doesn't make it illegal. Citing the fact that they think so, in a discussion of legality, is utterly useless."
Did you bother to read the comment that my quote was pulled from PG? I am perfectly aware that believing something should be illegal, or even believing that something *is*, does not make it illegal. I was simply pointing out to CC that a whole lot of Americans actually do believe that what Gates did was illegal and thus his arrest was justified and suggested that she might want to go on an internet crusade to "reeducate" those people. Feel free to take up that Quixotic quest yourself. As I said, you could make a whole career out of it right now. . .
The caller says of the two men "So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there." I guess it was just a slip of the tongue.
The street in question (Ware St.) is the eastern border of Harvard's central campus, and has more Harvard offices than private residences on it. The caller worked in one of those offices. I think that's the most logical explanation for the slip of the tongue.
Robin,
Why would I want to do that? Some of us don't believe in such quixotic quests; we prefer not to waste too many pearls on swine. The kind of people who believe flag-burning should be or is illegal overlaps fairly neatly with the kind of people who disregard court rulings that disagree with their own understanding of the Constitution. Telling them that the Supreme Court said flag-burning is Constitutionally protected won't change their minds; they'll just say the Court's decision was illegitimate. Tell them that even Antonin Scalia said it was Constitutionally protected, and they'll shake their heads in sorrow at how even a conservative is coopted by the America-hating liberal elite.
People who want to believe something are very persistent in sticking to that belief even when presented with facts that are contrary to it. Either they ignore the facts or they twist them to fit the pre-existing belief.
For examples, see today's Washington Post article that mentions conservatives who say they want the government to keep its hands off their Medicare -- refusing to believe, even when told so by their Republican congressman, that Medicare is a government program. See also the "birther" movement of folks who are convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii. And to acknowledge the lunatics on the left, see the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the towers' collapse couldn't have been due to the impact of two massive planes filled with fuel.
That makes me feel better, Alkali. Thanks.
And yeah, I haven't seen anything that suggests that re-educating people via the internet actually works or does anyone any good.
CC
Alkali's take on it was what I thought too. Ms. Whalen was on her way to work at Harvard Library so work was on her mind. I expect that she was conscious of possibly being late for work as a result of her civic action.
PG said - People who want to believe something are very persistent in sticking to that belief even when presented with facts that are contrary to it. Either they ignore the facts or they twist them to fit the pre-existing belief.
I am perfectly aware of that PG. That description fits the vast majority of U*Us I know. . .
Robin,
"Ms. Whalen was on her way to work at Harvard Library "
Her job was at Harvard Magazine. Why would she have been heading to "Harvard Library" (Harvard has a dozen libraries, do you mean Widener)?
Quite right. I knew it was Harvard Magazine but wrote Harvard Library my mistake. Maybe I had libraries on my mind when I made the comment, not unlike Ms. Whalen's own slip of the tongue. Feel free to say that I acted stupidly in writing Harvard Library rather than Harvard Magazine.
Post a Comment