Sergeant at eye of storm says he won't apologize

[del]

Lying that Gates was following him to his car when the photo shows Gates handcuffed just outside his door. You don't go around arresting people because they piss you off. Gates did not break any laws and he was no threat to anybody. The cop also also refused to show ID. When cops are out of order and you ask them that, they don't like it.

wah wah wah

funny how all the witnesses disagree with you, isn't it?

Not the one in the article you posted yesterday.

Can you explain to me how Gate's outburst in his own home warranted an arrest? Involving 6 officers and unknown lawyers and police administrators? How was he a threat to anyone other than to the thin skinned officer's own ego?

i don't recall the article i posted yesterday saying anything about it.

he was outside screaming, he was asked more than once to calm down, he didn't, he got arrested.

that's pretty much how it works. deal with it.

 

[del]

What reports (plural) are you reading? There's only one police report, and I find it a little strange that Sgt. Crowley didn't complete it himself. Instead, it was completed by the backup officer, Figueroa. I thought it was SOP that cops never approached a potentially dangerous situation alone? If Crowley thought there was a B&E in progress, it was pretty dumb for him to proceed solo, especially since the 911 call said there were two black men, not one. But because Crowley WAS alone, until the backup arrived, anything HE says that happened is simply his word against Gates' version of the incident.

there's one by figueroa and one by crowley.

google is your friend

The arresting officer and his back up?

What about the neighbor in the Herald article you linked to yesterday who said he saw what happened and that Gates should not have been arrested? What about Gates own testimony? I guess that doesn't count because nobody gets arrested unless they are guilty.

what about the neighbor? he offered an opinion. and?

police reports are generally filled out by the police.

 

[Anguille]

wah wah wah

funny how all the witnesses disagree with you, isn't it?

Not the one in the article you posted yesterday.

Can you explain to me how Gate's outburst in his own home warranted an arrest? Involving 6 officers and unknown lawyers and police administrators? How was he a threat to anyone other than to the thin skinned officer's own ego?

i don't recall the article i posted yesterday saying anything about it.

he was outside screaming, he was asked more than once to calm down, he didn't, he got arrested.

that's pretty much how it works. deal with it.

Here's your article.:

“The police did their job,” said the neighbor. “He should be thanking them. But they shouldn’t have arrested him. He had just gotten off a 20-hour flight. He couldn’t get his door open. He got frustrated . . . They should have just said forget it.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr. demands apology, sensitivity training - BostonHerald.com

 

[Anguille]

there's one by figueroa and one by crowley.

google is your friend

The arresting officer and his back up?

What about the neighbor in the Herald article you linked to yesterday who said he saw what happened and that Gates should not have been arrested? What about Gates own testimony? I guess that doesn't count because nobody gets arrested unless they are guilty.

what about the neighbor? he offered an opinion. and?

police reports are generally filled out by the police.

Do you always believe what the police say? And you've served on juries. Scary.

 

[del]

Not the one in the article you posted yesterday.

Can you explain to me how Gate's outburst in his own home warranted an arrest? Involving 6 officers and unknown lawyers and police administrators? How was he a threat to anyone other than to the thin skinned officer's own ego?

i don't recall the article i posted yesterday saying anything about it.

he was outside screaming, he was asked more than once to calm down, he didn't, he got arrested.

that's pretty much how it works. deal with it.

Here's your article.:

“The police did their job,” said the neighbor. “He should be thanking them. But they shouldn’t have arrested him. He had just gotten off a 20-hour flight. He couldn’t get his door open. He got frustrated . . . They should have just said forget it.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr. demands apology, sensitivity training - BostonHerald.com

i'm sorry, i'm missing the part where the neighbor says gates didn't follow him out to his car, thus making the cop a liar as you specifically claimed..

keep swinging

 

[Anguille]

i don't recall the article i posted yesterday saying anything about it.

he was outside screaming, he was asked more than once to calm down, he didn't, he got arrested.

that's pretty much how it works. deal with it.

Here's your article.:

“The police did their job,” said the neighbor. “He should be thanking them. But they shouldn’t have arrested him. He had just gotten off a 20-hour flight. He couldn’t get his door open. He got frustrated . . . They should have just said forget it.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr. demands apology, sensitivity training - BostonHerald.com

i'm sorry, i'm missing the part where the neighbor says gates didn't follow him out to his car, thus making the cop a liar as you specifically claimed..

keep swinging

Did Gates follow the cop to the car? Did Gates leave his property of his own accord?

 

[del]

he followed him outside and continued screaming at him.

why does it matter if he went to the car? it's unclear if he did or not.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

 

[G.G]

Just to shift gears a bit. Lets go back to Obama commenting on this incident at the health conference.

How is it that Obama could have a quick response about the white cop being accused of being racist and he said the police department acted stupidly and yet he didn't have a comment about the election of Iran for a week. What's up with that? When it came to O's friend and a white cop O had no problem chiming in with a off the cuff opinion without knowing the facts.

 

[Anguille]

he followed him outside and continued screaming at him.

why does it matter if he went to the car? it's unclear if he did or not.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

Because initial reports said the officer said he did follow him to the car. Now after the photo is released he says he didn't. The photo seems to show Gates never went farther than a step or two from his front door onto his porch. The claims that he was creating a public nuisance are increasing weakened as more info comes out. Notice neither party claims any physical contact occurred prior to the handcuffing nor do either mention any threat of physical violence. Basically the cop was yelled at in the confines of Gate's home which he had entered at Gates invitation. The cop then lured him outside before arresting him so as to have basis for a claim for arresting Gates for causing a public disturbance.

 

[WillowTree]

so,, in conclusion,, white police officers are always wrong in the liberal playbook,, anarchy is in the Alinsky handbook and Ayeres is their hero! so to know a libral you gotta know your 3 A.'s

Acorn

Alinsky

Anarchy

There's only one 'A' in your playbook.

four in yours add Ayres!

 

[del]

he followed him outside and continued screaming at him.

why does it matter if he went to the car? it's unclear if he did or not.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

Because initial reports said the officer said he did follow him to the car. Now after the photo is released he says he didn't. The photo seems to show Gates never went farther than a step or two from his front door onto his porch. The claims that he was creating a public nuisance are increasing weakened as more info comes out. Notice neither party claims any physical contact occurred prior to the handcuffing nor do either mention any threat of physical violence. Basically the cop was yelled at in the confines of Gate's home which he had entered at Gates invitation. The cop then lured him outside before arresting him so as to have basis for a claim for arresting Gates for causing a public disturbance.

.
gates never invited him in.

the police report was filed several days before the picture was published and there's no reference to gates following him to the car.

the photo is meaningless in terms of determining where gates may have gone during the incident. because his pic was taken on the porch doesn't mean he was never off the porch.

gates followed him out the door.

read the police report. oh, that's right. those evil pig bastards always lie.

 

[Anguille]

he followed him outside and continued screaming at him.

why does it matter if he went to the car? it's unclear if he did or not.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

Because initial reports said the officer said he did follow him to the car. Now after the photo is released he says he didn't. The photo seems to show Gates never went farther than a step or two from his front door onto his porch. The claims that he was creating a public nuisance are increasing weakened as more info comes out. Notice neither party claims any physical contact occurred prior to the handcuffing nor do either mention any threat of physical violence. Basically the cop was yelled at in the confines of Gate's home which he had entered at Gates invitation. The cop then lured him outside before arresting him so as to have basis for a claim for arresting Gates for causing a public disturbance.

.
gates never invited him in.

the police report was filed several days before the picture was published and there's no reference to gates following him to the car.

the photo is meaningless in terms of determining where gates may have gone during the incident. because his pic was taken on the porch doesn't mean he was never off the porch.

gates followed him out the door.

read the police report. oh, that's right. those evil pig bastards always lie.

If Gate's never invited him in, as you claim, why did he enter without his permission and without a warrant? If he thought Gate's was an intruder why didn't he just throw him to the ground?

BTW the police report does report the officer was inside Gates' home and that most of the argument took place inside.

Are you certain that the photo was released after the police report?

You called them pigs, not I.
Why do you think the charges were dropped?

 

[del]

Because initial reports said the officer said he did follow him to the car. Now after the photo is released he says he didn't. The photo seems to show Gates never went farther than a step or two from his front door onto his porch. The claims that he was creating a public nuisance are increasing weakened as more info comes out. Notice neither party claims any physical contact occurred prior to the handcuffing nor do either mention any threat of physical violence. Basically the cop was yelled at in the confines of Gate's home which he had entered at Gates invitation. The cop then lured him outside before arresting him so as to have basis for a claim for arresting Gates for causing a public disturbance.

.
gates never invited him in.

the police report was filed several days before the picture was published and there's no reference to gates following him to the car.

the photo is meaningless in terms of determining where gates may have gone during the incident. because his pic was taken on the porch doesn't mean he was never off the porch.

gates followed him out the door.

read the police report. oh, that's right. those evil pig bastards always lie.

If Gate's never invited him in, as you claim, why did he enter without his permission and without a warrant? If he thought Gate's was an intruder why didn't he just throw him to the ground?

BTW the police report does report the officer was inside Gates' home and that most of the argument took place inside.

Are you certain that the photo was released after the police report?

You called them pigs, not I.
Why do you think the charges were dropped?

he didn't need a warrant as he was investigating a possible crime and he didn't know that gates lived there. he asked gates to come outside and he refused.

he didn't know gates was an intruder, so why would he throw him on the ground?

yes, i'm certain it was released afterward.

have the courage of your convictions; it's clear what you think of police.

beats me,phone calls were probably made. i don't know if you noticed, but harvard has some influence in cambridge.

you do know that charges get dropped all the time, right?

 

[Anguille]

.
gates never invited him in.

the police report was filed several days before the picture was published and there's no reference to gates following him to the car.

the photo is meaningless in terms of determining where gates may have gone during the incident. because his pic was taken on the porch doesn't mean he was never off the porch.

gates followed him out the door.

read the police report. oh, that's right. those evil pig bastards always lie.

If Gate's never invited him in, as you claim, why did he enter without his permission and without a warrant? If he thought Gate's was an intruder why didn't he just throw him to the ground?

BTW the police report does report the officer was inside Gates' home and that most of the argument took place inside.

Are you certain that the photo was released after the police report?

You called them pigs, not I.
Why do you think the charges were dropped?

he didn't need a warrant as he was investigating a possible crime and he didn't know that gates lived there. he asked gates to come outside and he refused.

he didn't know gates was an intruder, so why would he throw him on the ground?

yes, i'm certain it was released afterward.

have the courage of your convictions; it's clear what you think of police.

beats me,phone calls were probably made. i don't know if you noticed, but harvard has some influence in cambridge.

you do know that charges get dropped all the time, right?

It's clear what you think I think of police. Or what you think insinuating what I might think of police might gain you in terms of looking like you have a point.

Saying I think they are pigs means you have either ignored my previous posts or not read them. It's rather offensive to me that you would say that.

I guess a police officer could never be wrong.

 

[del]

If Gate's never invited him in, as you claim, why did he enter without his permission and without a warrant? If he thought Gate's was an intruder why didn't he just throw him to the ground?

BTW the police report does report the officer was inside Gates' home and that most of the argument took place inside.

Are you certain that the photo was released after the police report?

You called them pigs, not I.
Why do you think the charges were dropped?

he didn't need a warrant as he was investigating a possible crime and he didn't know that gates lived there. he asked gates to come outside and he refused.

he didn't know gates was an intruder, so why would he throw him on the ground?

yes, i'm certain it was released afterward.

have the courage of your convictions; it's clear what you think of police.

beats me,phone calls were probably made. i don't know if you noticed, but harvard has some influence in cambridge.

you do know that charges get dropped all the time, right?

It's clear what you think I think of police. Or what you think insinuating what I might think of police might gain you in terms of looking like you have a point.

Saying I think they are pigs means you have either ignored my previous posts or not read them. It's rather offensive to me that you would say that.

I guess a police officer could never be wrong.

well, excuse me.

why hasn't gates contested any of the facts in the police report?

could it be *gasp* they're true?

 

[Anguille]

he didn't need a warrant as he was investigating a possible crime and he didn't know that gates lived there. he asked gates to come outside and he refused.

he didn't know gates was an intruder, so why would he throw him on the ground?

yes, i'm certain it was released afterward.

have the courage of your convictions; it's clear what you think of police.

beats me,phone calls were probably made. i don't know if you noticed, but harvard has some influence in cambridge.

you do know that charges get dropped all the time, right?

It's clear what you think I think of police. Or what you think insinuating what I might think of police might gain you in terms of looking like you have a point.

Saying I think they are pigs means you have either ignored my previous posts or not read them. It's rather offensive to me that you would say that.

I guess a police officer could never be wrong.

well, excuse me.

why hasn't gates contested any of the facts in the police report?

could it be *gasp* they're true?

Do you read anything but police reports?

 

[del]

It's clear what you think I think of police. Or what you think insinuating what I might think of police might gain you in terms of looking like you have a point.

Saying I think they are pigs means you have either ignored my previous posts or not read them. It's rather offensive to me that you would say that.

I guess a police officer could never be wrong.

well, excuse me.

why hasn't gates contested any of the facts in the police report?

could it be *gasp* they're true?

Do you read anything but police reports?

yeah, i read a lot of fiction here.

 

[Sweet Willy]

So you'd rather be arrested for not providing proof that you are who you say you are.

That's the point: I do not have to prove anything to anyone. There is no requirement that you have to do anything other than give your name (and address I think). It's not incumbent upon any of us to continuously provide proof to every cop who asks, who we are. If he doesn't believe you, and he must have a reasonable cause not to, he can detain you for a reasonable amount of time and do his best to prove you are someone other than who you say you are. But he sure as hell doesn't get to arrest you or keep you indefintely. If I say I am Bozo Fartman then that's who I am unless you can prove otherwise.

You think? hahaah not so sure are you? The fact is you have to produce ID anytime an officer request it or risk going to jail. But since you don't mind going to jail then what is your problem?

What would prevent someone from giving the authorites a false name? And what if that false name that was given, had an outstanding warrant.

You have got to be the dumbest person I've seen in this group by far. Do yourself a favor and it may save you future embarrassment. Call you local police station and ask them what would happen if you refused to provide an ID when asked. And then ask them why they would even bother with such a request. I'll be back tomorrow to read your response.

You are only required to give your name to a police officer and that's only set in stone in 21 states. Nowhere in the US is there any law requiring that you even carry ID, much less show it. And yes, it would be a lot of fun for me if I was arrested for failure to have an ID. You do realize that drivers license and picture IDs are fairly new things for people to carry around? How did we ever manage to know who anyone was in 1888?

You always HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Maybe you've heard of that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's the point: I do not have to prove anything to anyone. There is no requirement that you have to do anything other than give your name (and address I think). It's not incumbent upon any of us to continuously provide proof to every cop who asks, who we are. If he doesn't believe you, and he must have a reasonable cause not to, he can detain you for a reasonable amount of time and do his best to prove you are someone other than who you say you are. But he sure as hell doesn't get to arrest you or keep you indefintely. If I say I am Bozo Fartman then that's who I am unless you can prove otherwise.

You think? hahaah not so sure are you? The fact is you have to produce ID anytime an officer request it or risk going to jail. But since you don't mind going to jail then what is your problem?

What would prevent someone from giving the authorites a false name? And what if that false name that was given, had an outstanding warrant.

You have got to be the dumbest person I've seen in this group by far. Do yourself a favor and it may save you future embarrassment. Call you local police station and ask them what would happen if you refused to provide an ID when asked. And then ask them why they would even bother with such a request. I'll be back tomorrow to read your response.

You are only required to give your name to a police officer and that's only set in stone in 21 states. Nowhere in the US is there any law requiring that you even carry ID, much less show it. And yes, it would be a lot of fun for me if I was arrested for failure to have an ID. You do realize that drivers license and picture IDs are fairly new things for people to carry around? How did we ever manage to know who anyone was in 1888?

You always HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Maybe you've heard of that.

Yes and in this case had he refused to provide ID the police officer would have been justified in arresting his ass for breaking and entering. You see dumb ass, a complaint was filed and a witness was available to provide first hand report that this man and another FORCED their way into the home. With no compelling evidence that the man in the home lived there the police would have had to arrest him until they could identify him or contact the owner.

One had better identify themselves or face arrest when the police have a justifiable reason to believe a CRIME has occurred. Pretty damn simple concept, you would think, except to retardo Liberals.

 

[Care4all]

I read this on a blog similar to usmb....

by Mark Kleiman
Category: Crime Control

Lowry Heussler, who has worked on police-misconduct cases in Massachusetts, writes:

****************

A couple of years ago, my neighbor locked herself out and figured she could save the locksmith charge if she could get to an unlocked door on her second floor porch. A Cambridge police officer happened by and helped us carry an extension ladder across the street from my garage. He even held the ladder steady while my nimble neighbor ascended to the porch. The police officer never asked two laughing Caucasian women to prove we were not burglars.

We all know that race and sex explain the difference in the way Sgt. James Crowley treated Professor Gates, but I'd like to leave that to the side for now. The incendiary issue of race in policing diverts public attention from examining the foundation of Crowley's misconduct. When addressing basic errors in law and fact can solve a problem, we should start there before tackling the enormous and slippery issues of race and crime investigation. We're all talking about whether Lucia Whalen should have called the police and whether race was a factor in Sgt. Crowley's deplorable treatment of Gates, but so far, I have seen no straightforward analysis of Crowley's own account of his actions.

Sgt. Crowley's report almost certainly contains intentional falsehoods, but even accepting his account at face value, the report tells us all we need to conclude that Crowley was in the wrong here, and by a large factor.

The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.

But for the sake of education, let's watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He's staying put in Gates' home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he'll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: "I'm sorry for disturbing you," and "I'm glad you're all right."

Spoiling for a fight, Crowley refuses to repeat his name and badge number. Most of us would hand over a business card or write the information on a scrap of paper. No, Crowley is upset and he's mad at Gates. He's been accused of racism. Nobody likes that, but if a cop can't take an insult without retaliating, he's in the wrong job. When a person is given a gun and a badge, we better make sure he's got a firm grasp on his temper. If Crowley had called Gates a name, I'd be disappointed in him, but Crowley did something much worse. He set Gates up for a criminal charge to punish Gates for his own embarrassment.

By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. The only plausible question for the chief to ask about that little detail is: "Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid?" Crowley produced those handcuffs to provoke Gates and then arrested him. The decision to arrest is telling. If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates.

No one who is familiar with law enforcement can miss the significance of Crowley's report. As so often happens with documentary evidence, a person seeking to create a false impression spends lots of time nailing down the elements he thinks will establish his goal, but forgets about the larger picture. Under color of law, Crowley entered a residence to investigate a possible break-in, and after his probable cause had evaporated, he continued to act under color of law, but without any justifiable purpose. And he covered it up with false charges. Figuring that his best defense was a criminal charge, Crowley did what bad cops do. He decided he would look better if Gates looked worse. Perhaps one day cops will figure out that trumped-up charges worsen a case of investigating something that turns out not to have been a crime. It is horribly wrong when police officers falsely accuse an injured arrestee of A&B PO ("assault and battery on a police officer," a felony) but at least there is some logic to the lie. If a disorderly conduct charge follows an investigation of a non-crime, chances are pretty good that the cop handled himself badly. Pursuit of charges should be strongly disfavored.

The lying matters. I'm afraid that part of the decision to nolle prosse the case stems from the CPD's reluctance to have Mr. Ogletree produce evidence contradicting Crowley's statements.

I'm not surprised that the CPD backed away from this, but I take a hard line on completing an investigation, regardless of whether Gates pushes for one. I've detailed what I think are serious abuses of authority by Crowley, even if his report is taken as true, but I am also very concerned about "testilying" in police reports. Most of us would be fired for giving our employer a false report, even if it concerned relatively minor matters. Employers need to know they can trust us. When a person is prosecuted in the name of the Commonwealth, a testifying police officer is essentially the eyes and ears of the citizenry. Don't lie when you're my agent.

If Crowley lied about Gates' statements, he should not be permitted to investigate crimes ever again. Investigation for the government is a sacred responsibility. Unless Cambridge investigates and acts properly, we're ratifying his actions. We're also putting the public at risk of false arrest and police persecution. Lying cops are like biting dogs. After the first bite we can't say we weren't warned. Conservatives love "zero tolerance" for crime. Could we have zero tolerance for testilying?

People scoff at the idea of disciplining a cop for lying in a report, let alone firing a cop for a single episode of lying. Complete truthfulness in the police may be an impossible dream. But the goal of policing is a crime-free community, isn't it? The police have to keep working toward the unattainable goal of eliminating crime. The rest of us should be uncompromising in our efforts to eliminate police misconduct.

I haven't read the police report yet, but when gates asked for crowley's id and crowly said he would only give it to him if he stepped outside...crowley could have been setting him up for an arrest of disorderly conduct...

As long as the ruckus was carried on inside his home crowley could not arrest him on disorderly conduct...did crowley, refusing to give gates his id information unless gates went outside, really want to set up mr gates for an arrest?

something doesn't smell right to me...