Having heard more of the details of this case, I'm inclined to agree that the cop in question should be reprimanded for taking Gates into custody: the arrest simply wasn't justified.

This sort of thing happens all the time, however, and I don't imagine it can be eliminated without completely emasculating police authority. In other words minor abuse of power is an unfortunate side effect of necessary medicine. I could be wrong, and I would be curious to know what others think of this ancient and ubiquitous problem.

Taking this a springboard to explore issues of race and criminality doesn't make any sense, except in a purely "while you're all tuned in, let's talk about some related issues" way.

I honestly believe that a certain segment of our society wants the police to walk onto a scene like Gate's home and gather neighbors, Gates, his driver, and maybe even a few other police officers and just sort of sit around on the lawn in a circle and describe the options. The officer might have said, " could you all share your thoughts on what would be the best course of action given that a phone call came to our dispatcher in which two men were seen forcing their way into Dr. Gates home." Maybe then Dr. Gates could have thanked the officer for his sensitivity and awareness of the fact that he was fortunate enough to be called to this eminent scholar's home.

Until such a perfect day, I imagine we will continue to have misunderstandings...

Llapgochmaster:

Having heard more of the details of this case, I'm inclined to agree that the cop in question should be reprimanded for taking Gates into custody: the arrest simply wasn't justified. This sort of thing happens all the time, however, and I don't imagine it can be eliminated without completely emasculating police authority. In other words minor abuse of power is an unfortunate side effect of necessary medicine. I could be wrong, and I would be curious to know what others think of this ancient and ubiquitous problem. Taking this a springboard to explore issues of race and criminality doesn't make any sense, except in a purely "while you're all tuned in, let's talk about some related issues" way.

The officer is going to be reprimanded, and probably forced to apologize anyway. He has bad judgement in both his handling of the incident and his assertion that he won't apologize. He also ignored his training. The officer knew this was not a "cause to riot". He also knew he had to give out the information. Officers walk away from people cursing them out. This one decided to assert his authority on the wrong person. Had he followed his trianing: i.e. give the information and walk away, we would not be hearing about it.

Anyone else he's treated this way is down at internal affairs filling out affidavits. If that guy keeps his job, he'll be lucky.

As for Gates, he should have kept his temper. But it was his house, and his request was lawful. This happened to one of my students. He kept his temper, answered the police calmly, and pointed out that the neighbors certainly knew he lived there- why would they waste police resources by calling the police on him? Neighbor wound up in a LOT of trouble with the police that day-false and harrassing reports are not tolerated where I am. A calmer response on Gates' part would have been far more effective.

In my small town, a nine year old white boy lied about a black neighbor attempting to "lure" him. The school panicked, the police investigated. The man was not in town. The boy admitted he lied to avoid a school assignment and get attention. Good police work and training prevented a racial incident from escalating. I wound up with more respect for the police here, not less.

Too bad the police officer in Cambridge didn't have the good judgement of a small town detective in a small Midwestern state... judgement and training make a massive difference...

The questions would be two: is this just about authority or was it also about race and are not these small incidents in effect the ground war in the struggle against racism?

It's like discretion resulting in sexual harassment. We can't have no discretion, we can't look over people's shoulders and restrain their actions so much that they cannot do wrong. But, a petty example of sexual harassment can be a window into a wider problem.

-j

Given that racism is inherently intertwined with authority it is impossible to separate the two.

In this case, it isn't even clear the cop had a right to be on Gates' porch. The door was no longer open, there were no men visibly engaged in B&E or in doing anything that resembles a robbery (being on the phone is not something robbers do). Clearly there was no "hot pursuit".

Nor was there a warrant. So neither 4th nor 5th amendment requirements were being met by the cop when he asked for ID.

Personally, were I in Gates' role, I would have refused to offer ID and demanded the officer leave my porperty until he had a warrant.

I've been in a similar situation while boating. I was racing a 24' sailboat. During racing we stow the motor down below out of sight, but the motor mount remains. the state boating Registration regs required boats 25' and over to ALWAYS be registered but under 25' only if you had a motor.

• My registration had expired so in the middle of a race the police boat pulls alongside. Since it was Federally navigable waters they had no boarding rights. They demanded I pull alongside.
• I responded "On what grounds? I am a sailing vessel and you are power vessel you are required to stand clear unless I am in violation of a law".
• They pointed to my registration to which I responded "This boat is under 24' in length I'm not required to be registered - stand clear"
• They then said I was required to be registered because of my motor - to which I responded "You do not see a motor on this vessel - it is a sailing vessel, stand clear".

Now I was a white male who clearly knew the law. And they did stand clear though they parked themselves at the mouth of the marina forcing us to scull the boat into the berth rather than use the motor. Had I been a black man on a sailboat, I'm sure they would have boarded me anyway.

Since racism is about power, yes, authority would be intertwined.

He was responding to a call. I can go to Gates' porch and ring the bell unless it was a totally closed community and/or access was blocked for some reason. As to probable cause, maybe there was something on the guy's computer and they had to access a line. Robbers also might have to use the phone. If it was a robbery at all. He could have broke in for any number of reasons.

Gates didn't have to let him in. He didn't have to show id. But, people as a whole, especially when they are dealing with authority tend to take the path of least resistance. They also know that if they do not, they might be sorry. Obviously, this is wrong, but one person against the authorities are not evenly matched.

-j

Yes the officer had a right to ring the doorbell. But he also had the onus to be aware that the only two things that matched between Gates and the supposed suspects doing the B&E were race and gender.

That's not sufficient cause to act the way he did.

"Had I been a black man on a sailboat, I'm sure they would have boarded me anyway."

With all due respect, doesn't your assuredness of this claim contribute to the persistence of racism?

"In other words minor abuse of power is an unfortunate side effect of necessary medicine. I could be wrong, and I would be curious to know what others think of this ancient and ubiquitous problem."

I am sorry, when I read this, I couldn't stop laughing for a couple of minutes.

Abuse of power, depriving citizen's of their civil rights, arresting a person they know did not commit a crime, arresting people who are impolite, et cetera is NOT 'an unfortunate side effect of necessary medicine.

I doubt that it is an ancient and ubiquitous problem, either. I like to think there are some cops, judges, prosecutors, et cetera that can do their jobs and respect the rights of others. Although, I am afraid you are right, this does not happen often enough.

This does NOT mean that unlawful actions by cops is in any way, shape or form "a side effect of necessary medicine." By saying it is so, you are excusing egregious behavior by a sub-group of people who have taken an oath to protect and serve the citizenry. All police power arises from the citizenry, it is not, magically, conferred upon people who decide that being a police officer pays well, has a good pension and doesn't actually require one to produce anything.

If we roll over, as you suggest, and accept that police officers who act in contravention of the law are acceptable, that is the kind of police force we are going to get. This is the cowards way out.

If you don't put up with cops acting in violation of the law, you will not have what you describe as the "unfortunate side effect of necessary medicine."

We get the kind of police force we demand. I demand one that does not break the law while claiming to do their duty.

"But, people as a whole, especially when they are dealing with authority tend to take the path of least resistance. They also know that if they do not, they might be sorry. "

The only people who do this are cowards.

the only two things that matched between Gates and the supposed suspects doing the B&E were race and gender.

This doesn't make sense. Gates and his driver were the same people whom the passer-by saw breaking in. They were exact matches for the reported suspects.

Where do you live? It sounds like a lovely land. Do they give out ponies?

-j

The passerby saw two tall black males with backpacks

That doesn't describe Gates in the slightest.

degsme:

The passerby saw two tall black males with backpacks

That doesn't describe Gates in the slightest.

If you don't think it was Gates and his driver trying to break open the front door, then who was it?

I think the best self-deprecatory summary of the case was provided by blogger Patterico, whom I quote below. It's a lot better analysis than the pretentious blather Richard Thompson Ford wrote.

"Let me be clear. I do not know the facts of the Henry Louis Gates arrest.

But my understanding of the facts is that the officer once gave a black man mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; that the officer is an expert on avoiding racial profiling; that he spoke to a witness who had seen two black men attempting to break into Gates’s home; that the officer talked to Gates, a black man inside that home; that Gates did not explain to the officer that he had been shut out of his own home — and that Gates decided that the police officer, a man apparently trying to do his job, was a racist, and started screaming at him.

I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry if we were called a racist for trying to do our jobs.

No. 2, Gates acted stupidly in not explaining to an officer who said he was investigating a possible break-in: “Oh, I understand what’s going on here. My door was jammed and I was trying to jimmy it open. Someone must have seen seen that and assumed I was breaking in!”

No. 3—what I think we know separate and apart from this incident—is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos complaining about being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact. Yet, when they are being stopped because they fit the description of a criminal, that means someone with their skin color committed a crime. And maybe they could reserve some of their outrage for those criminals — because if the criminal hadn’t committed the crime, they wouldn’t get stopped.

Knowing nothing about what actually happened, I just thought I would nevertheless pop off and express a bunch of opinions that make it seem like I do know what happened."