Based on the professor's belligerent conduct, it might be he who hasn't gotten out to know his neighbors, nor, given his neighbors a reason to do so with him.
Just a thought.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Pre-eminent black scholar arrested in Cambridge
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
Based on the professor's belligerent conduct, it might be he who hasn't gotten out to know his neighbors, nor, given his neighbors a reason to do so with him.
Just a thought.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,379
True, it doesn't mention whether she was a neighbor.
Still, the cops were right to show up. Everything after that gets fuzzy because we don't know exactly what was said by whom.
Honestly, a black guy growing up in the 1950s and 1960s can be very justified in getting a little cranky if cops show up at his house asking for ID for no discernible reason.
Although, I did a little looking and can't find any info of his time growing up. His Wikipedia article focuses mainly on his work as a literary scholar.
Still, the cops were right to show up. Everything after that gets fuzzy because we don't know exactly what was said by whom.
Honestly, a black guy growing up in the 1950s and 1960s can be very justified in getting a little cranky if cops show up at his house asking for ID for no discernible reason.
Although, I did a little looking and can't find any info of his time growing up. His Wikipedia article focuses mainly on his work as a literary scholar.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
So the report seemed direct. Was it accurate?
I've seen a couple of police reports that were straightforward lies.
I've seen a couple of police reports that were straightforward lies.
I suspect given the notoriety the police intuited the case would garner, the report was accurate. There's no motive for the police to have lied.
Quite the contrary. There's every motive for the police to have lied; if a Harvard professor sued the Cambridge police for false arrest, every syllable of the report would be gone over in court -- and any weakness in it would be immediately trumpeted.
Charges against Gates have already been dropped, according to CNN. The officer involved has admittedly already broken the law by failing to identify himself. I would not be at all surprised if the officer is disciplinarily suspended -- but if the officer had written up an ambiguous report, he would be fired. Instantly, and with just cause.
Now, you're further escalating the situation, Inspector Clouseau. If you ever need a cop, call a Harvard professor, instead.
Unfortunately, forum rules prevent me from fully describing the level of stupidity involved in that post.
Obviously you've never been a cop or a professor. For that reason, I'll pretend that your post was made in ignorance instead of out of blatant racism, and explain the situation in a little more detail.
1) Cops lie. This isn't particularly a slam against cops -- cops are humans, and humans lie. And one of the most powerful motives for telling lies is a simple CYA.
2) "Disorderly conduct" -- especially in a situation where there are no witnesses -- is well-known to be one of the trickiest and slipperiest charges to make, and it's got a long history of being used by corrupt cops to cover up unjustified actions on their part. For that reason, I (and, I suspect, most cop-watchers, as well as most judges) are immediately suspicious when someone is arrested on no other charge than "disorderly conduct."
3) Given the inherent weakness of the charge, about the only evidence that can be placed against someone accused of "disorderly conduct" is the police report. By the same token, if the police report itself does not clearly support the charge, then the arrest is very likely to be held to be unjustified and open the policeman up to a charge of false arrest.
4) ... especially when the person accused turns out to have the resources to fight the charge in court (and the stature to make sure that the charge does get fought in court). A cop might be able to sweep an unlawful arrest of me under the rug, but Gates' arrest was in the national news within hours, which in turn means that every journalist or lawyer with an axe to grind is going to be reading that report within hours.
You said that the cop has no incentive to lie. I merely pointed out that you were wrong; the cop has every incentive to lie.
Does that mean the cop did lie? No, of course not. But there are a few other pieces of evidence that point that way. The first is simply that the charges were dropped; no prosecutor likes to issue a nolle pros if he can avoid it; obviously the prosecutor didn't find the police report convincing.
The second, and more damning, is that the policeman has already broken the law in at least one regard by failing to identify himself upon demand. This, as I said, is illegal. The policeman is therefore already a demonstrated lawbreaker. In light of this, and in accord with the legal maxim falsus in unum est falsus in omnibus, I claim that the report should be given no credibility.
Good thing, too. Wouldn't want the neighbors to have to contact the police.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
?? Broken the law or failed to adhere to his department's regulations? Slight difference, but this might be a slight overstatement in your case.
Granted, I don't know of any police force that does not require an officer to identify himself, but "he was breaking the law" and your follow on "demonstrated law breaker" line seems an overstatement.
Is this statutory, in Mass, or is it regulatory?
Your reasoning here is weak: falsus in unum est falsus in omnibus
Right, the baby thrown out with the bathwater. He can have been wrong in his identification procedure and still written an honest and correct report. It does not necessarily follow that his report was not credible. However, the added piece of evidence, his superiors tossing that baby out, suggests that his report didn't smell right to them, or, that his failure to follow correct procedure rendered the case moot or groundless. My suspicion: he lost his cool when the prof got irritated at the cop confronting him in his own home, that he had just had to break into when returning from a trip. The officer is supposed to stay in control of himself in such situations.
ETA: uh, I think I did a post rather than preview deal there, sorry, cleaned it up.
DR
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Lessee here
1. Professor of Black Studies
2. 58 years old (my age)
3. Grew up in the 60's
4. just returned from a trip
Therefore has nothing to prove. Arrogant as hell, chip on the shoulders, "Just because I'm a black man"
Playing the race card gives him more justification for holding his position in what, IMO, is a useless cirriculum...
I've been asked by the cops why I was crawling in the window of a house. I turned beet red, scuffed my toe in the dirt, hung my head, and said "I locked the keys inside", and gave the man my DL. He took my license, went to his car, came back, handed it back to me, and said "Have a better day tomorrow", and left.
YSM
Thinker
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 184
Well, here's a statement from Henry regarding the incident:
http://dallassouthblog.com/2009/07/...r-releases-statemen-through-charles-ogletree/
http://dallassouthblog.com/2009/07/...r-releases-statemen-through-charles-ogletree/
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
YSM
Thinker
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 184
I'm on your side, man. Look at my previous posts.
Last edited:
CNN has reported that Gates said the cop was a racist. According to the report, when Gates was told he was being taken in, he said "Why, because I'm a black man in America?"
linusrichard
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,710
Lessee here
1. Confronted in his own home
2. Proved his identity and that he lived there
3. Cop entered his home without consent, warrant, or probable cause
4. After cooperating and asking the cop for his name and badge number (which it appears the cop is obligated to give), is arrested
Here's his statement. I invite you to point out the "race card" contained therein.
If it's "arrogant" to be upset about being arrested on your own front porch having done nothing wrong and in fact cooperated with the police, for the "crime" of asking the cop for his name and badge number, then I don't see anything wrong with being that "arrogant."
Proving what, exactly? That you got a nicer cop than Gates did? That cops treat white people better than black people? That cops treat people who demonstrate humility better than people who assert their rights? I have anecdotes about interactions with the police as well. But just because cops treat you nicer when you bow and scrape doesn't mean (a) you're obligated to bow and scrape, or (b) the cops are justified in their overreaction when you don't bow and scrape.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
The part highlighted is important.
you DO NOT let a suspect OUT OF YOUR SIGHT. It was NOT illegal for the cop to enter and follow--the Prof had not yet proved his identity, and was still a suspect.
Turning and walking away from a cop questioning you is stupid and arrogant. You explain what you are doing and why, and he copmes with you. Always.
YSM
Thinker
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 184
Change what exactly? The details of Henry's claim that neither you nor I can confirm nor deny?
I believe this whole incident was a miscommunication, and I believe Henry got emotional (for good reason) and said some things about how he's black and 'White America' is trying to get him, et cetera, when in reality that wasn't the case. Nothing to see here. Let's move on.
Last edited:
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
I'm not disputing that. I'd say that any charges of unlawful entry (by the officer) would be overkill (and lose in court). However, what he did is provide the officer with proof of residence as requested. Regardless of whether the officer thought the guy was an ass or not, the B&E call was mistaken and they had no cause to arrest him.