"Disorderly conduct" and the First Amendment

[Daistallia 2104]

Freedom of Speech was designed solely and only to grant people the freedom to criticize the government without fear of retribution. It does not mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want. The professor was being disorderly and should've simply handed over his ID, then the cop would've apologized for wasting his time and nothing would be made of it. People are making a huge deal out of nothing.

Gate's was taking an officer of the government to task for apparent wrongdoing, which meets your narrowly defined purpose for FoS...

[Wanderjar]

Freedom of Speech was designed solely and only to grant people the freedom to criticize the government without fear of retribution. It does not mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want. The professor was being disorderly and should've simply handed over his ID, then the cop would've apologized for wasting his time and nothing would be made of it. People are making a huge deal out of nothing.

Gate's was taking an officer of the government to task for apparent wrongdoing, which meets your narrowly defined purpose for FoS...

No, he was refusing to hand over his identification. An officer who asks for your ID when you're skulking around a house late at night after a neighbor calls the police is doing nothing wrong. You're in no position to discuss the situation with them as he did: i.e with hostility.

[Treznor]

Digby weighed in on this last week.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gatesgate-by-digby-i-have-been.html

I said the other night that I thought Gates was lucky he didn't get tased and I really think he was. People all over this country are "subdued" by means of electricity every day, probably more blacks than whites, but it doesn't seem to be particularly limited to race. We are accepting this kind of thing as if it's just an inevitability because of the attitudes this police officer very thoughtfully lays out in his essay: we are told that we must defer to authority or risk all hell breaking loose.

And I would suggest that it is just that attitude that led to people in this country recently endorsing unilateral illegal invasions, torture of prisoners and the rest. You remember the line --- "the constitution isn't a suicide pact." To which many of us replied with the old Benjamin Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The principles here are the same. Sure, we should treat the cops with respect and society shouldn't encourage people to be reflexively hostile to police. They have a tough job, and we should all be properly respectful of people who are doing a dangerous and necessary job for the community. But when a citizen doesn't behave well, if not illegally, as will happen in a free society, it is incumbent upon the police, the ones with the tasers and the handcuffs and the guns, to exercise discretion wisely and professionally. And when they don't, we shouldn't make excuses for them. It's far more corrosive to society to allow authority figures to abuse their power than the other way around.

Henry Louis Gates may have acted like a jackass in his house that day. But Sergeant Crowley arresting him for being "tumultuous" was an abuse of his discretion, a fact which is backed up by the fact that the District Attorney used his discretion to decline to prosecute. Racially motivated or not he behaved "stupidly" and the president was right to say so.

But Digby has a way of putting things into perspective that I thoroughly enjoy. This comes immediately to mind:

And by the way, if anyone wants to see some real incoherence on this subject, consult the right wingers who are defending the policeman today, but who also believe that anyone has the right to shoot first and ask questions later if they "feel" threatened in their own home. By their lights, Gates should have been arrested for behaving "tumultuously" but would have been within his rights to shoot Sgt Crowley. This is why conservatives have no standing to discuss anything more complicated than Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

[Tmutarakhan]

I find the following excerpt from Crowley's report quite pertinent: "Gates continued to yell at me [and] I told Gates I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak to him outside of the residence."

In other words, "If you want to keep on yelling at me, do so outside -- where I can arrest you for disorderly conduct." What Gates was doing to Crowley outside Gates' home (but still in his own yard) was the same thing he did inside of the house , BUT now it was in public view. In essence, Crowley lured Gates to a location where Crowley felt he had sufficient grounds for making an arrest.

Isn't that called, "entrapment"?

No, it's not entrapment. entrapment is when you are given no choice but to commit a crime.

No, entrapment is when you are "induced" or "encouraged" to commit a crime which you otherwise would not have. It does not require compulsion.

The case which ended my legal career was a police beating: my client "resisted" by putting his nose in front of a cop's fist and his teeth in the way of the cop's desk. He was mouthy, and it did not take me long to understand how the situation had evolved. But the judges were downright fascist: not in the vernacular sense of fascist to mean "a political position I don't like", but in the technical sense, advocating a police state; the trial judge charged the jury that whatever the police did was by definition legal (they stayed out for hours despite the direction to find against us, which gave me some hope, but they did finally give a verdict for the cops); on appeal, I had ransacked the unpromising Pennsylvania case-law, which consisted of case after case which the cops always won but kept saying things about how, if the situation were different in such-and-such a way (many of them applying to my case) the outcome should be different, but the appeals court issued a secret ruling (marked "not for publication", and accompanied by an order to me not to discuss it, which I did not and still do not consider within their authority) saying they would not rule against the police under any circumstances.

My client was one of those people for whom patriotism substitutes for religion. This revelation about how the system works totally broke him (along with his financial woes, and worries about his mother's decline). He committed suicide very genteelly, walking into the snowy woods with a fifth of liquor and passing out in the cold, so that his mother could pretend it was an accident, although all of us who knew him concluded otherwise. I feel into a paralyzing depression. My law license was up for renewal shortly thereafter, and since I would have had to take an oath again to "support the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania", which I did not feel I could say in good conscience anymore, I burned it instead. It was plastic-laminated, so it would not burn completely, and stank.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Freedom of Speech was designed solely and only to grant people the freedom to criticize the government without fear of retribution. It does not mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want. The professor was being disorderly and should've simply handed over his ID, then the cop would've apologized for wasting his time and nothing would be made of it. People are making a huge deal out of nothing.

Gate's was taking an officer of the government to task for apparent wrongdoing, which meets your narrowly defined purpose for FoS...

No, he was refusing to hand over his identification. An officer who asks for your ID when you're skulking around a house late at night after a neighbor calls the police is doing nothing wrong. You're in no position to discuss the situation with them as he did: i.e with hostility.

1. Professor Gates had, according to the officer, already shown his identification long before he was arrested.

2. It was the officer, not Professor Gates, who refused to show ID.

3. Professor Gates was not "skulking around a house late at night." This happened in the middle of the day. Broad daylight. It was Gates's home. After finding the front door jammed, he had opened the back door with his keys and turned off the alarm.

4. The officer said in his own report he thought Professor Gates was the resident from the get-go.

But, most importantly, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE HOSTILE VERBALLY TO A POLICE OFFICER. Nor should it be.

[Ashmoria]

Gate's was taking an officer of the government to task for apparent wrongdoing, which meets your narrowly defined purpose for FoS...

No, he was refusing to hand over his identification. An officer who asks for your ID when you're skulking around a house late at night after a neighbor calls the police is doing nothing wrong. You're in no position to discuss the situation with them as he did: i.e with hostility.

1. Professor Gates had, according to the officer, already shown his identification long before he was arrested.

2. It was the officer, not Professor Gates, who refused to show ID.

3. Professor Gates was not "skulking around a house late at night." This happened in the middle of the day. Broad daylight. It was Gates's home. After finding the front door jammed, he had opened the back door with his keys and turned off the alarm.

4. The officer said in his own report he thought Professor Gates was the resident from the get-go.

But, most importantly, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE HOSTILE VERBALLY TO A POLICE OFFICER. Nor should it be.

i know that african americans have a bit of a different point of view on this but to me this IS the crux of the issue...that you should be king of your own castle free from being rousted by the cops. its not a small thing to be abused in your own home.

to have it be (as tmurtarakhan so eloquently wrote about) impossible for the cops to do the wrong thing is dangerous and unamerican.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

*snip reply to G&D*

4. The officer said in his own report he thought Professor Gates was the resident from the get-go.

It's an excellent report. It makes it plain that Crowley did not fulfill his duty ... but it is commendable that he recorded events with such candor. He could easily have lied, his word against Gates, but he didn't do that.

Isn't this exactly what we want of a police officer, that if they make an error of judgement in a difficult situation, that they are candid about the events which occurred? I say he should just go back to his job, without penalty or commendation.

But, most importantly, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE HOSTILE VERBALLY TO A POLICE OFFICER. Nor should it be.

It's not here (NSW Australia) either. As far as I can make out:

1. Offensive conduct cannot consist only of offensive language
2. Offensive language does not apply unless some other person than a police officer is offended by it.

There have been a whole bunch of new summary offences added since this second requirement was adding in about '98, mainly targeting young people.

But the old ways where police would arrest anyone they wanted to for alleged use of offensive language to police have been improved on (Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody did a lot of good for non-Aboriginal Australians too.)

How it went was the officer(s) would allege your language was offensive and arrest you. If they wanted to go further than that, they could also charge you with Resisting Arrest. And if they really wanted to screw up your life, you'd get Assaulting Police.

And of course it can still happen, but making an exemption to Offensive Language for the actual officer involved removed an important link in the "three-fer."

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip reply to G&D*

4. The officer said in his own report he thought Professor Gates was the resident from the get-go.

It's an excellent report. It makes it plain that Crowley did not fulfill his duty ... but it is commendable that he recorded events with such candor. He could easily have lied, his word against Gates, but he didn't do that.

Isn't this exactly what we want of a police officer, that if they make an error of judgement in a difficult situation, that they are candid about the events which occurred? I say he should just go back to his job, without penalty or commendation.

I don't believe Sgt. Crowley should be penalized, but I wouldn't call his report commendable.

According to Professor Gates and the original 911 caller, Sgt. Crowley's report does contain lies and distortions.

To the extent Sgt. Crowley's report shows candor (some of which could be alleged to an acknowledgement that some of what he concedes could be independently verified), you seem to be commending him for not lying as much as he theoretically could have. Hardly a high standard.

[Marcuslandia]

To the extent Sgt. Crowley's report shows candor (some of which could be alleged to an acknowledgement that some of what he concedes could be independently verified), you seem to be commending him for not lying as much as he theoretically could have. Hardly a high standard.

Heehee. Sort of like thanking the mugger because when he took your wallet, he left you enough money for cab fare so you could get back home.

[Muravyets]

I think this whole episode is being swept aside for the sake of not having the Big Racism Issue hashed out in the US right now, and for a lot of reasons, that's probably a wise choice. But it is still a bitter pill to swallow, because I firmly believe that this officer is being allowed to get away with a false arrest.

The more we have learned about this incident, the more it seems obvious that the police officer most certainly did act stupidly. And the result of his stupidity was a clear case of false arrest. Even though general experience suggests this would have been less likely to happen if Prof. Gates had been white, I know of enough incidences of police in Massachusetts being assholes in just this kind of manner to whites as well as blacks, so I'm not going to put the incident down to racism.

But I do think the reaction to the incident has been driven by attitudes about race, most definitely, and I think that has distracted people from the real issue, which is what has been discussed in this thread -- that law-abiding citizens are actually NOT required to kowtow to a badge just because some ego-case flashes one. The police are not the bosses of the people. They are members of "the People" and thus they are the equals of civilians, not our superiors. They need more justification than just someone getting "lippy" to arrest someone.

I wonder when people started to forget that, because when I was growing up I was taught where the line was drawn pretty clearly, over and over, by just about everyone in my life, including the police themselves. The message was clear: The policeman is your friend. But he's not your "friend" friend. He needs a good reason to stop you on the street, to ask for ID, to enter your home, to take you somewhere. You don't have to comply if he does not have a good reason or warrant. This is not East Germany. If you're just minding your own business, not breaking any laws, you have every right to say "No" to any cop who asks anything of you.

Frankly, when Crowley tried to get Gates to exit his house, if Crowley had stepped out onto the porch, Gates would have been within his rights just to close the door on him and lock it. Then call Harvard security again and the Cambridge PD, tell them the situation, and tell them to remove that asshole from his doorstep.

[Tmutarakhan]

to have it be (as tmurtarakhan so eloquently wrote about) impossible for the cops to do the wrong thing is dangerous and unamerican.

I should point out that, although the judiciary completely failed, the Justice Department (under Clinton, after I'd given up on Pa. and the law) did investigate some of the more abusive police departments in Pennsylvania and roped them in to some degree.

[Phenia]

I think this whole episode is being swept aside for the sake of not having the Big Racism Issue hashed out in the US right now, and for a lot of reasons, that's probably a wise choice. But it is still a bitter pill to swallow, because I firmly believe that this officer is being allowed to get away with a false arrest.

I agree. I think Obama is compromising with the right-wing far too much. He's not going to accomplish anything by continually pandering to people who quite literally have a detachment from reality.

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee. The Birthers alone are to thank for that. Casting just enough dispersion and "controversy" playing on xenophobia, paranoia and racism to shift that extra few percent. It won't even matter what his policies are for the next few years.

[Marcuslandia]

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee. The Birthers alone are to thank for that. Casting just enough dispersion and "controversy" playing on xenophobia, paranoia and racism to shift that extra few percent. It won't even matter what his policies are for the next few years.

I don't think we'll have a good handle on the probable outcome until 2011, and that will hinge on the state of the Economy. IF the recession/depression scales down to at least 2006 levels, Obama will be lauded as "the person that saved us from another Great Depression!" (No matter how much the GOP tries to minimize Obama's influence on the state of the Economy.) If the Economy is as bad as it is now, or worse, he'll be viewed as having been more or less ineffectual as a President, no matter what else he accomplished during his term in office.

[Ashmoria]

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee. The Birthers alone are to thank for that. Casting just enough dispersion and "controversy" playing on xenophobia, paranoia and racism to shift that extra few percent. It won't even matter what his policies are for the next few years.

I don't think we'll have a good handle on the probable outcome until 2011, and that will hinge on the state of the Economy. IF the recession/depression scales down to at least 2006 levels, Obama will be lauded as "the person that saved us from another Great Depression!" (No matter how much the GOP tries to minimize Obama's influence on the state of the Economy.) If the Economy is as bad as it is now, or worse, he'll be viewed as having been more or less ineffectual as a President, no matter what else he accomplished during his term in office.

the republicans also need to find someone with charisma.

[Phenia]

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee. The Birthers alone are to thank for that. Casting just enough dispersion and "controversy" playing on xenophobia, paranoia and racism to shift that extra few percent. It won't even matter what his policies are for the next few years.

I don't think we'll have a good handle on the probable outcome until 2011, and that will hinge on the state of the Economy. IF the recession/depression scales down to at least 2006 levels, Obama will be lauded as "the person that saved us from another Great Depression!" (No matter how much the GOP tries to minimize Obama's influence on the state of the Economy.) If the Economy is as bad as it is now, or worse, he'll be viewed as having been more or less ineffectual as a President, no matter what else he accomplished during his term in office.

I can't help but be skeptical about that now. We're living in an era where there is actual serious discussion as to whether or not Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement (etc) were all faked to have a Kenyan citizen usurp the Presidency and impose communistic socialism on the US. How can anyone bet on reason and common sense, even assuming there is something to be reasonable about?

[Ashmoria]

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee. The Birthers alone are to thank for that. Casting just enough dispersion and "controversy" playing on xenophobia, paranoia and racism to shift that extra few percent. It won't even matter what his policies are for the next few years.

I don't think we'll have a good handle on the probable outcome until 2011, and that will hinge on the state of the Economy. IF the recession/depression scales down to at least 2006 levels, Obama will be lauded as "the person that saved us from another Great Depression!" (No matter how much the GOP tries to minimize Obama's influence on the state of the Economy.) If the Economy is as bad as it is now, or worse, he'll be viewed as having been more or less ineffectual as a President, no matter what else he accomplished during his term in office.

I can't help but be skeptical about that now. We're living in an era where there is actual serious discussion as to whether or not Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement (etc) were all faked to have a Kenyan citizen usurp the Presidency and impose communistic socialism on the US. How can anyone bet on reason and common sense, even assuming there is something to be reasonable about?

its far easier to pull that shit on someone who isnt well known. mr obama will have 4 years as president under his belt and if he has done a good job in that time the non-crazy people will not be swayed by nonsense thrown up by the republicans. its too late for that just as it was too late to throw mr bush's national guard experience up as a disqualifier in '04.

[Marcuslandia]

I can't help but be skeptical about that now. We're living in an era where there is actual serious discussion as to whether or not Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement (etc) were all faked to have a Kenyan citizen usurp the Presidency and impose communistic socialism on the US. How can anyone bet on reason and common sense, even assuming there is something to be reasonable about?

In any given contest, the wider the gap is between likely winner and likely loser, the more desperate the likely loser becomes -- and the more willing to employ strategies with low probability of success that might miraculously turn the tide. That is, _because_ they are willing to try patently insane/inane stratagems shows just how desperate they are. Their defense of the insane strategy is, "Yes, we recognize how crazy this sounds -- and makes us look. Do you not therefore realize that we wouldn't trot this out unless it was _true_?"

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

*snip reply to G&D*

4. The officer said in his own report he thought Professor Gates was the resident from the get-go.

It's an excellent report. It makes it plain that Crowley did not fulfill his duty ... but it is commendable that he recorded events with such candor. He could easily have lied, his word against Gates, but he didn't do that.

Isn't this exactly what we want of a police officer, that if they make an error of judgement in a difficult situation, that they are candid about the events which occurred? I say he should just go back to his job, without penalty or commendation.

I don't believe Sgt. Crowley should be penalized, but I wouldn't call his report commendable.

According to Professor Gates and the original 911 caller, Sgt. Crowley's report does contain lies and distortions.

OK. I was going off the report alone. The main thing I noticed was that Crowley did not identify himself to Gates, even after Gates identified himself. That's the "not fulfilling his duty" bit.

There's clearly a lot more to it. I haven't followed the story with much interest (the 'racial profiling' aspect really dampens my interest.)

To the extent Sgt. Crowley's report shows candor (some of which could be alleged to an acknowledgement that some of what he concedes could be independently verified), you seem to be commending him for not lying as much as he theoretically could have. Hardly a high standard.

No, it's not is it. I concede.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I think this whole episode is being swept aside for the sake of not having the Big Racism Issue hashed out in the US right now, and for a lot of reasons, that's probably a wise choice. But it is still a bitter pill to swallow, because I firmly believe that this officer is being allowed to get away with a false arrest.

Asking Gates to step outside his own house, after Gates had proven (with ID) that it was in fact his house ... yes, that was wrong and led to the arrest. So, false arrest.

The more we have learned about this incident, the more it seems obvious that the police officer most certainly did act stupidly. And the result of his stupidity was a clear case of false arrest.

OK.

I wonder when people started to forget that, because when I was growing up I was taught where the line was drawn pretty clearly, over and over, by just about everyone in my life, including the police themselves. The message was clear: The policeman is your friend. But he's not your "friend" friend. He needs a good reason to stop you on the street, to ask for ID, to enter your home, to take you somewhere. You don't have to comply if he does not have a good reason or warrant. This is not East Germany. If you're just minding your own business, not breaking any laws, you have every right to say "No" to any cop who asks anything of you.

Has it ever been like that ? If a cop tries to clear a sidewalk for a good reason (eg, imminent danger) then even people "minding their own business" should comply. It's a "reasonable request" (as I think requesting Gates to identify himself was) but not an order.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't need to do anything a cop tells you" is a good lesson for kids. But when we're grown-up, we should have the perspective to realize that what we think we're doing is not necessarily how it appears to others, including to police.

When there's a misunderstanding, we should try to sort it out rather than making accusations which only further the misunderstanding.

Frankly, when Crowley tried to get Gates to exit his house, if Crowley had stepped out onto the porch, Gates would have been within his rights just to close the door on him and lock it. Then call Harvard security again and the Cambridge PD, tell them the situation, and tell them to remove that asshole from his doorstep.

But he didn't do that. He too acted stupidly.

Stupid behaviour by a police officer on duty is more serious than stupid behaviour by a person in their own home (or anywhere else I guess.) I'm not arguing moral equivalence.

Gates deserves an apology and Crowley an official reprimand, because although they both behaved stupidly, the latter did so while doing his job.

If Gates had been yelling that way at a student in the course of doing HIS job, he too would deserve some reprimand from his superiors.

[Tmutarakhan]

He's not going to win in 2012, that I can pretty much guarantee.

Do you want to make a large bet?
I think he's pretty much untouchable in 2012. The Republicans are looking stupider and crazier every day.