President Barack Obama was right to address the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr, but he didn't help the situation by saying the police acted "stupidly." Now that statement was stupid. I'm not defending the officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, because he could have walked away from this incident after it was clear that Gates lived at the house and was not a burglar. This should have been a non-issue, even if Gates was beng a jerk. Charges were dropped immediately, which shows that prosecutors didn't believe the law was broken.
We all say things when we are angry, especially if we think we are being singled out unfairly. But officers should be treated with respect, and Gates was not being respectful. That's not against the law, but this is not how people should act in a society already tough enough without creating additional conflict. And you're asking for trouble from a cop if you scream at him, even if he is the professional who is trained to de-escalate such incidents. Police have a tough job, and must make split-second decisions that the rest of us have the luxury of dissecting days after the incident. I suspect that Crowley would have acted differently if he could rewind the incident. He appears to me to be a very decent officer.
Obama now realizes that he screwed up in his statement and is trying to resolve this issue by bringing the two sides together. He has even invited the officer and the professor to the White House for a beer. I hope they go because this incident does not need to be another thing that divides America. Gates and Crowley might even like each other.
Let's not use this incident to make political points to attack someone you don't like politically anyway, and let's not use it to further an agenda on racial profiling. This case was a mistake on both sides, and now we need to learn from it -- not make it bigger.
Have a beer, get to know each other. That's the sensible way out of this.
Jim-
"Can't we all just get along?" This incident is important because it provides insight into how Obama thinks. He, and probably the caller, are the ones who may be racially profiling. Obama was the most obvious profiler when he said he wasn't there and he didn't have all the information, but had already concluded that the officer acted stupidly and them went on to lecture the country on the difficulty with race relations. At least the neighbor witnessed someone breakimng into Gates' home before he/she called. If Obama was just a snoopy neighbor it wouldn't be such a big thing, but this someone who wants to re-structure almost 20% of the American economy. Besides the obvious racial baggage he brings with him, it shows a proclivity to jump to conclusions based on his own narrow view of the world. Doesn't it sound similar to the approach he is using to foist a flawed health care system on us? No, I will not excuse him- he is the President of the United States and should exhibit a higher level of intellect. Unfortunately, he has not yet done so- I hope his teleprompter guy gets him straightened out.
I think President Obama has undercalibrated a reservoir of respect for law enforcement officers, and the artful role they play in responsibly ruling out deception during an investigation of a home burglary in progress. There are important actions for the safety of the resident and officers which preclude being forced out of situations which are sometimes not over, a potentially fatal "miscalibration" in itself. These long established police procedures are colorless.
Now that the national media has informed the world of his particular address, perhaps the Harvard professor can study and publish the effects this whole fiasco on his personal security. Any person of color who is criminally inclined to push the front door of the Gates residence, will have the advantage of knowing that the police response is likely to be very tepid. Inversely, the neighborhood watch/ good samaritan policy has likely been altered to the advantage of home invaders. What goes around comes around.
This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required when you're driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. From here, ID laws only get more complicated. As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws.
Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity.
Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.
Isn’t refusing to let the police search me an admission of guilt?
No. If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The main reason why officers ask is because they don’t have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have -- your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. (source: MSN search "bing")
PS When do I have to show ID?
In 1983 , the Court struck down a California stop-and-identify law that required a suspect to provide “credible and reliable identification” upon request.
(MSN "bing" is silent on whether this is still in force in 2009)
This goes way beyond just bthe ID issue. The call came in from someone stating that two men with backpacks appeared to be breaking into a house. When the officer arrived and knocked on the door identifying himself as police checking out a possible burglary. The prof answered and didn't follow orders to produce ID at which time the officer asked him to step outside to talk to him. The officer was at this time all the while being yelled at by this famous Harvard professor in protect mode for himself and as well as the Prof since he could not see the 2nd reported man. The iother guy could have been holding the Prof hostage or been a threat to the PO. It was his duty to make sure the other man was not a threat. If he had just left and the Prof had been killed in his own home the PO would hasve been hung by everyone and called a racist because he wasn't thorough in checking out the safety of the black prof. If the incident is looked at like this for what it was the officer can't be held responsible or seen in a bad light. Recently an officer came to my home saying they had received a 911 call from our house and asked me if I had called and if I was ok. I said nobody called 911 to my knowledge but she requested to come in and see for herself that all was ok as was her job. Turns out my daughter was calling a friend \whose number had a 911 in it and it went through to them.
Tool Time: Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index (-)11...ouch.
You've pretty much said it all Jim. At least Obama did what not enough people ever do. He apologized for jumping to conclusions. If Officer Crowley had said, "I'm sorry Professor, I was just following up on a call of breaking and entering. That's the job you pay me to do." Or if Professor Gates had said, "I'm sorry officer, I didn't mean to pop off like that, it's just been a bad day. I understand you're just doing your job," none of this would have been a story.
Yea Bart, keep us posted on the Approval Index, we care as much as Bush did in his Presidency.
It is my opinion (to which I am entitled) that the white cop out of a feeling of inadequacy brought on by the arrogance of a black academe contributed to the unfortunate incident of police power versus the constitutional rights of a citizen in his own home.
And it is getting weird that Americans have to back-paddle on everything they say these days. We can say what we want and when we want as long as it is not legal slander or is defamatory. And on the non-legal basis, one must never deliberately hurt people's feelings. I am certain that president Obama did not mean to hurt that cop's feelings. Am I an Obama acolyte? Not as of yet.....but I have been instilled with Old World patience. "Come Time Come Counsels."
Jackie Krage, If you sic a cop on me in my own house, minding my own business, that does not mean that I should give up my 4th Amendment rights by any means. For someone who is so touchy about being "overweight and handicapped" you certainly don't make much civil rights allowance for that black Harvard University professor. Neither of the two individuals acted prudently. In the final analysis, no harm was really done. But the 4th Amendment is easily one of the most important in the Bill of Rights. The Philadelphia Congress would not have adopted the Constitution without the added Bill of Rights, those 10 Amendments.
Isabell, I'm not one of those people who watch what I say in fear of offending people so I'll tell you this straight. Your only thing I read into your comments were that your a very ignorant person. You have a us against them mentality thats very apparent in your writing.
So what your saying then is if police have a general idea of what a wanted felon looks like and they see a man that someone fits that description walking down the street that the only thing that felon has to do is deny the officers hid ID? By your explaination of the 4th amendment that is.
Police received a call stating that men broke into the profs house, then you go to the door and what do you get? You get a man yelling at you refusing to show ID. How do you know he lives there? Why isn't he cooperating? Why is he so angry? Is he on a illegal substance? So many questions run through a police officers mind. Oh, forgot this question runs through their heads to "How can I mess with this black guy?" at least I'm sure thats what you believe.
If I remember correctly "Ouroboros" I posted printout from msn bing what American law demands from each citizen, and what the United States Constitution protects, which includes the guarantee that you can "tell me straight" that I am ignorant. Have a good day good man, good woman?
Mrs. Isabell Lawson
The newest revelation: The complaining party did not use race to describe the two men who were breaking into the Gate residence.
I'm curious about subject number two...he sure disappeared quickly.
Most of the folks here weighing on the officer's side and against Obama's statement seem to forget the history of abuse by cops towards people of color. Do you not think that cops pull people of color over in affluent neighborhoods just because. I have a freind who's a cop in Fresno who admits to doing this.
I have been wondering why didn't Prof Gates just show the policeman his drivers's license? then maybe he hadnoother means to show proof of his ID. I no of one incident when my husband was pulled over for not breaking any law--the policeman wanted to know if the car he was driving was r egistered in his name. This happened in the early fifties.
Most folks believe that the police have an important role to play in our open society and that we are better off with them, than without them. Belief is a very strong drive that helps people get up in the morning even if the day promises not to be the best. The world will never be a perfect place but you use the term history, that's a start. It's good to have a friend, maybe you can make more friends as time goes on.
Maybe you should have titled this one, "There's a lot of whining going on." The police have to be cautious in a situation in which a neighbor calls about a break-in. Had they not tried to determine who was in the house and something bad did go down, the article would say, "Racist cops don't protect black homeowners." The cops get blamed either way. Seems to me the racial issue was foremost in the mind of Mr. Gates which is why he acted so uncooperative in the first place. Sure, sure you can state that he's had to live with it his whole life so he's sensitive to it. Does that mean this one cop is to be held responsible for a lifetime of experience? Scot is right. Everyone jumped to conclusions and no one is willing to give ground. This has more to do with testosterone than race.
The only reason the media asked Obama about this issue is because they want to stoke the fires of racial intrigue. Nothing Obama could have said would have been right. If he agreed with Gates then he is playing favorites to black people. If he agreed with the cops then he would have been accused of overcompensating and trying to be white. Obama also "acted stupidly" by getting suckered into a question like this. His answer should have been, "I was not there so I can not make an accurate judgement of what transpired. I leave that to local officials to decide." Anyone who thinks the President should be personally involved in every scuffle that happens in the United States has no clue what the President actually does on a day to day basis. Why does our media continually try and bait our Presidents (past and present)? And why do our Presidents put up with it?
One of the last comments echo my thoughts. The police received a call that there was a possible break in or robbery in progress. The officer comes to the door, asks to verify who the person who answers is to verify that it is not a bad person. The individual overreacts, giving rise to suspicion on the part of the officer. All of this to say that Obama, or anyone else for that matter, should not try to judge what they do not have a clear picture of. Yes the press will try to get him to open mouth and insert foot, which he did, but he may learn yet. It is a very different situation where you are in the public eye as compared to being a private citizen. Maybe Obama, and others, need to take a refresher on this, and learn just to say "no comment" when there is really nothing to be said.
It was too hard to say "No Comment" when you're a racist.Glenn Beck has Obama nailed on this one.We can see and hear the influence of 20 plus years of sitting in the church of Rev.Wright.Obama lied about not paying attention as his racist knee jerk reaction proves.Too late to say "I'm Sorry".He said it and he owns it.
I believe the incident should be given a rest. But let us quickly look at "Stop and Identify" statutes. 24 US sates have such a law.
CALIFORNIA as well as MASSACHUSETTS are not among them. I am passionate about Liberty. Americans have it served to them on a platter in the Constitution of the United States but they are too often willing to squander it prejudicially.
The beehive bloggers' overwhelming support is for the police and condemnation for the prominent intellectual (who is black) , and who defended his constitutional rights. It tends to indicate that America could be turned into a police state, just as the Nazis did Germany, a traditionally freedom loving people , being whipped into a hysteria of a communist under every bed, and the evil of anti-Semitism. You weren't there....I was! I am no post WWII Baby Boomer, I am a very senior person with all my marbles together. And please, don't waste your time with comments that no communists or Jews are involved in the recent debacle. Those whom I am addressing know what I am talking about...and the others... no comment.
I still think the cop acted stupidly....does that make me a racist? I also think the Professor acted stupidly. Would that make me a racist? Clearly the cop, who wielded all the power here wasn't big enough to defuse the situation and the Professor didn't show the police officer enough respect. Maybe they are both racist. Glen Beck is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about...maybe he's a racist.
Scot...You have little information other than what you've been spoon fed by your source of choice...The one certain thing is Obama's racist knee-jerk reaction and joined with your defense of Obama and with the fact that you call Glenn Beck an idiot shows you have no tolerance for those who challenge your biased,racist perspective.Get back to me when you're willing to admit your mistake of electing a racist fraud with no experience in managing or leading anything...all the signs were there but you chose to ignore them...so you and his supporters own these embarassments.
Just consider this incongruity....the beehivers are either pro-cop or pro-prof. But it seems that only one bloggers (a foreign born) is more concerned with the constitutional guarantees afforded by the Fourth Amendment, and the proper application of police power. Both can co-exist just fine, unless voix populi screws it up with emotional reaction of taking sides, as it were a game of sorts. Who really cares what the cop or the scholar thought or what we think. The question still remains....was justice served properly or was it not? And to forge it into an anti-Obama propaganda item is equally incongruous.
Brian, you continue to be a waste of time for me...most of the time. I bet you think you have a lot of intelligent things to say, but your above reply to me is no example. I miss your well thought out reasonable posts and questions. There has been two or three.
Scot...Your response and the intellectual dishonesty of so many others is why I have little hope for our nation and the world...How can you fix something on any level if you can't admit the truth about the problem...and If I'm a waste of time for you... then I'm not the one with the problem...Am I?...and my utterings...intelligent or not(by your standards)are from the heart and not the product of the media(I watch and listen very little).I'm just trying to be me.