Door Knock:

Officer Crowley: Good evening sir, we are responding to a call we received from a neighbor who was concerned about a potentail break in, are you the resident of this home?

Gates: Yes I am officer. I have been out of town and just got back today. I could not find my house key so I had to jimmy the door open. There is no problem here.

Officer Crowley: I am sure there is no problem sir, but nevertheless, I do need to see your I.D. to confirm this is your address. Department procedure, anytime we investigate a break in that turns out to be a false alarm.

Gates: (Passes ID to Crowley)

Officer Crowley: Thank you Mr. Gates. I am sorry for the inconvenience.

Gates: NO problem officer. Thank you for checking on my home. I am gone alot on business and appreciate your responding to the call.

Officer Crowley: Have a good day.

Would that have been so hard?

2 quick comments

i guess you are assuming the police officer was just as courteous as in you example. do you have proof for this? from my experience, police officers just demand (show me an ID) usually don't bother to explain why, and if you do demand to know why will escalate you to be "confrontational"

you and I should hope fervently that being an asshole is not grounds to be arrested

Not at all. Too bad Crowley didn't act that way. Instead he saw a black man who DID NOT match the called in description in any way except race and concluded that the crime was still in progress.

degsme,

Go to Drudge and read the police report. Crowley did not suspect Gates of burglary.

degsme:

Not at all. Too bad Crowley didn't act that way. Instead he saw a black man who DID NOT match the called in description in any way except race and concluded that the crime was still in progress.

He matched the description. Stop lying and saying he didn't. Eyewitness descriptions are sometimes not 100% accurate. The description given was close enough it could have been Gates. We know for a FACT it WAS Gates she saw.

Hmm Gates had a backpack? Because that's what he was supposed to have had on if he was one of the burglars.

The police report has Crowley insisting Gates come out on the porch, then it has Crowley inside the house with no actual invitation to enter the house.

degsme:

Hmm Gates had a backpack? Because that's what he was supposed to have had on if he was one of the burglars.

He might have when she saw him or a bag the looked like a backpack.

degsme:

The police report has Crowley insisting Gates come out on the porch, then it has Crowley inside the house with no actual invitation to enter the house.

He asked him to come outside. The police prefer this because it is safer for them. Did Gates say he didn't give permission or are you just assuming?

degsme:

Hmm Gates had a backpack? Because that's what he was supposed to have had on if he was one of the burglars.

Did the eyewitness say both people had on backpacks?

I find it adorably naive that Hogie thinks Officer Crowley was so gosh-darned polite to Gates when he opened the door, just like Andy Griffith, explaining why he was there and asking right away if he was the resident of the home. And then, what the heck, would you believe it, next thing you know Gates is flying off the handle like a madman.

It is not in dispute that the first thing that Crowley did when he showed up is not explain who he was and what he was doing there, but demanded that Gates step out of his house. This is clearly what set Gates on edge. Had Crowley picked up on several cues (man has no compunction about answering the door, is elderly, walks with a cane, is wearing a dorky outfit that reeks of upper-middle-classdom) that clearly outweighed the only cue that he may be a burglar (he is black and therefore matches a description given by a passer-by), this could have been avoided. I don't think Crowley consciously acted in a racist manner, but he certainly subconsciously ignored a lot of cues that should have led him to act a little more civilly.

Instead Crowley himself initiated a confrontational tone and Gates, who is obviously not used to being treated that way, escalated the situation, and voila, a national controversy.

He "might have had" when she saw him... IOW her testimony is no longer sufficiently persuasive to be evidence of a crime in progress. Her testimony no longer matches what Gates looked like when the Officer saw him. IOW there was no probable cause any longer.

As for asking Gates to come outside - it was a demand which Gates wisely and rightfully ignored. Had Gates done so he would have been legally subject to a "Terry Stop" which includes physical restraint and a full body search.

Both Crowley and Gates claim that Gates refused this despite Crowley's demand.

Tom_Tildrum:

Did the eyewitness say both people had on backpacks?

according to the reports she did.

Well stated and summarized.

The racism wasn't conscious but it was there. It is what led to ignoring the clues in place of the larger more skin toned one.

degsme:

Hmm Gates had a backpack? Because that's what he was supposed to have had on if he was one of the burglars.

I don't know did Gates have on a packback when he got home, possibly he had been traveling? The backpack argument is just stupid. Might he not have taken the backpack off?

degsme:

The police report has Crowley insisting Gates come out on the porch, then it has Crowley inside the house with no actual invitation to enter the house.

Please quote where the report uses the word insisting. It doesn't. He followed him in that is true. The issue of an invitation is not addressed.

Crowley said he observed Gates through the glass of the door. Crowley is an experienced cop. He would have noted ANYTHING that corroborated the witness testimony. In fact he is TRAINED to look for exactly that. The absence of it from the report, the dubious feasbility of a man with a can CARRYING a backpack, all argue MORE THAN STRONGLY that no backpack was present.

Again, Crowley's report includes all his justification for all his subsequent actions because Police Reports are what the cases are based on. So either Crowley is an incompetant cop for not putting that information into his report (something I highly doubt), OR Crowley saw no backpack, no forced signs of entry, in fact NOTHING to corroborate Whalen's story EXCEPT Gates' RACE and gender.

Same applies to following Gates into the residence. If Gates had invited him in, a competent officer would have noted this since it then gives justification for any subsequent visual search that might yield a criminal prosecution. And I doubt you are suggesting Crowley is incompetent. Which means that he did not receive such an inviation. We KNOW Crowley had no warrant. And we also know from Crowley's report that he had NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE EXCEPT RACE and gender.

So unless you are going to tell me that RACE is now the source of Probable Cause - which does in fact make this a racist case - then Crowley violated Gates' 4th Amendment right for a person to be "secure in their house".

And an Am4 violation is a pretty significant Constitutional violation of rights

degsme:

Again, Crowley's report includes all his justification for all his subsequent actions because Police Reports are what the cases are based on. So either Crowley is an incompetant cop for not putting that information into his report (something I highly doubt), OR Crowley saw no backpack, no forced signs of entry, in fact NOTHING to corroborate Whalen's story EXCEPT Gates' RACE and gender.

Same applies to following Gates into the residence. If Gates had invited him in, a competent officer would have noted this since it then gives justification for any subsequent visual search that might yield a criminal prosecution. And I doubt you are suggesting Crowley is incompetent. Which means that he did not receive such an inviation. We KNOW Crowley had no warrant. And we also know from Crowley's report that he had NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE EXCEPT RACE and gender.

So unless you are going to tell me that RACE is now the source of Probable Cause - which does in fact make this a racist case - then Crowley violated Gates' 4th Amendment right for a person to be "secure in their house".

And an Am4 violation is a pretty significant Constitutional violation of rights

She said she didn't know the race. So race wasn't a factor. Also you don't know that he didn't see signs the door was broken. You are correct that Gates told him it couldn't be secured after the arrest.

You are also correct that Crowley being trained assumed he was probably the resident; he even said so. But he still has to verify it. He can't just leave.

She said she saw two men forcing a door. Is it your honest opinion that the police shouldn't investigate this? Not even ask a question? That is plainly ridiculous.

I have asked before but I'll ask again; in your opinion what SHOULD Crowley have done?