Obama, Gates, Crowley ALL are Right!

In deciding how to handle provocative and humiliating encounters, I have had to take a close look at the concept of true masculinity vs false. Genuine masculinity is not condescending or abusive by nature and imbues a man with the ability to calmly endure provocation.

http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/gang-stalking-and-false-masculinity

Sgt. Crowley did everything right except arresting the Professor.  Once the Prof.'s ID was provided, and proof of residence established, the Sgt. should have left.  Whether the Prof. was being verbally abusive or not, the police are supposed to be trained to have a high tolerance level for this sort of behaviour.  It's like disciplining a child for being rude to the teacher. 

The Sgt.'s job was to determine if there was a break-in or not.  There wasn't, so he should have left the Prof. at that point.

I hate being wrongfully accused, so I can imagine how angry the Prof. must have been. Anger makes us do and say stupid things, and that is the reason this incident became what it is, and not so much racism.  And where is this place where a neighbour doesn't know who lives next door?  That's the craziest part, for me.

As for Pres. Obama, he should not allow personal bias to surpass his role as a man for all the people, as difficult as that might be for him or any President.  We all make mistakes, so the Pres. should learn from this gaffe, be forgiven and let things move on.  Still, the public should be aware of how tricky it is to be a black man and President - where before white men in any powerful position could and did support their own (and still do) without comment, a black man has to be careful that his support for another of his race cannot be misconstrued as being partial.  I feel for the Pres. and the thin line he has to walk.  

I beg to disagree. Prof Gates misconstrued the approach by Sgt Crowley. He must have thought that the latter came to him because he's black and as he was having difficulty with the door to his home (it might have seemed that he's breaking and entering). Little did Prof know that Sgt Crowley was actually responding to a call by a concerned lady who happened to pass by that neighborhood. This led to Prof Gates assuming that he was a victim of racial profiling, it is this reason that might have triggered him to become hostile to the extent of verbally insulting the officer.

Though flabbergasted by Prof Gates' behavior, Sgt Crowley should have just swallowed his pride and left. However, as we were not there, it wouldn't be fair to say that he should or shouldn't have arrested Gates for disorderly behavior.

I would like to highlight the danger of raciophobia (the hate for racism) here. If Prof had not misunderstood the officer action, if Prof had not been too hasty to associate his situation with past cases of racial profiling with his current situation, he laughed off the incident and thanked the officers (two of them) for doing their job. He would also have found out that it was a concerned caller who alerted the police. He would have reflected his action and truly have seen the suspicious action he might have evoked that night. ALAS, raciophobia and racism are still alive in America.

FYI, I have been stopped by cops when I dashed out from my own house (at 7 pm) while rushing to my friend's house a few blocks away. My action caused suspicion to the patrolling cops and they had to accompany me back to my own home. When they verified that there was no crime commited, I thanked them for their action and also their commitment in keeping the neighborhood safe. They reciprocated by explaining that they had to stop me because there had been increasing cases of breaking and entering in the neighborhood lately and they couldn't afford to be careless on the job.

Now, imagine what would have happened if I shot back insulting the officers for the inconvenience they caused me (while they were actually doing their job). So, please don't be overly sensitive and generalize all officers as evil. It's unfair.

You said there's an abuse in DC. But have you ever empathize the reverse? If there had not been DC (which was many many years back), how many abuses (verbally and physically) had our officers been subjected to from unruly people while in line the of duty? DC was there to protect them. So, I would say that abuse happens on "both side of the fence" and it's unfair to take side. Abolish DC and you will have many cops subjected to ill-treatment and defenseless to do anything about it. However, I agree with you that some officers do abuse DC, but can you really generalize this abuse to the extent that there is a need to abolish the only code that protects our cops?

It's really true that Police work is really unappreciated. They risked their lives to serve and protect, and now they are burdened with negative perception by the public (no thanks to a few rotten apples).

Thanks for an interesting Opinion piece.

You are WRONG that Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. & Sgt. James Crowley are both RIGHT in *my* opinion! Sorry Dr. Shelton but I couldn't resist that. :-)

You are definitely categorically WRONG in pretending that U.S. President Barack Obama made any comment to the effect that the whole situation is “Stupid”. He said no such thing. President Obama asserted that the Cambridge police force "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates. His exact words were -

"Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home,"

There are all kinds of good reasons why the police might arrest somebody when there was proof that they were in their own home not the least of them being that there might have been a warrant out for an arrest on a previous charge. There might have been illegal drugs in the home that the officer found when investigating the reported break-in. The *somebody* might have gotten so irate and belligerent that he or she assaulted the police officer. etc. etc. etc.

:but the laws and police training should change so this doesn’t happen again.

I will not dispute that there may be room for improvement in the law and police training but there is plenty of evidence which suggests that Gates was arrested for legitimate reasons.

:Apparently the officer found it acceptable to arrest someone for asking for his name and a badge number.

The key word here being *apparently*. . . Either you are ignorant about what really happened, and thus making the same mistake as President Obama did in irresponsibly commenting on a situation when you do not know enough about the actual facts or you are knowingly and willfully misrepresenting what actually happened. Either way you are *wrong* Dr. Shelton. You have completely omitted any mention of the insults and abuse and slanderous accusations that professor Gates was hurling at Sgt. Crowley and possibly other officers at the scene as well. You omit any mention of Gates' alleged loud shouting and yelling. Gates was not arrested for politely asking for Sgt. Crowley's name and a badge number, information that Crowley claims to have provided to Gates at least twice, he was arrested because he was throwing a *disorderly* tantrum in front of witnesses aka the public. That is called disorderly conduct aka disturbing the peace and *that* is what Gates was arrested for and charged with.

:Their stories different as to whether there was racial issues involved.

What an understatement. Read this and weep. . .

http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks

:Both Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. & Sgt. James Crowley are RIGHT in my opinion! I also fully agree that the whole situation was stupid and should never happen in that fashion.

Who do you fully agree with Dr. Shelton? Not President Obama because he never said or even suggested that "the whole situation was stupid".

:The blame however, is NOT with Gates or Crowley.

Wrong again. There is plenty of blame to level at professor Gates for his disorderly conduct to say nothing of his repeated insulting and slandering of Crowley if not other Cambridge police officers. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the person who bears the highest degree of personal responsibility for this situation escalating to the level it has escalated to in a matter of a week or so, or don't you believe in the concept of personal responsibility Dr. Shelton? Sgt. Crowley and other police officers may have a certain amount of blame to accept as well although I honestly do not see much evidence of them doing anything seriously wrong in how they handled this matter and I say that as someone who has been falsely arrested himself at least one and more like two or three times. I did not give the police a hard time however and perhaps partly because I was cooperative even though I was quite certain the arrests were not justified they were very polite and professional. I even publicly commended them for their professionalism even going so far as to say that they made it a pleasure to be arrested. Quite frankly, considering just how uncooperative, insulting, and verbally belligerent Gates was behaving towards the police, I am very favorably impressed with the manner in which Gates arrest was conducted even if it was an illegal arrest which is by no means established.

:The problem is overly vague, over-used and abused, and unconstitutional Disorderly Conduct laws, as well as improper or inadequate training of officers. 

OK I actually agree that the Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct law that Gates was arrested under is somewhat problematic. It certainly appears that it could be misused and abused to arrest legitimate peaceful public protesters who are loudly shouting slogans or using megaphones etc. I suppose that Gates shouting and yelling insults and abuse at the police could even be construed as a public protest itself. . . I too believe that this law *may* be unconstitutional and that the responsibility for that lies with legislators rather than police officers. I am not however convinced that improper or inadequate training of officers played a role in this situation.

Here is the proverbial "letter of the law"

And here is my commentary on it

:Under the present DC laws in America, even if you yell in an upset voice in your own home or on your own porch when DEFENDING your civil rights, the police can unbelievably state you are disorderly.

Gates was not defending his civil rights. He was "loudly and tumultuously" insulting, slandering, and otherwise verbally abusing Cambridge police officers. Is it so unbelievable that he was arrested on disorderly conduct charges Dr. Shelton? He was after all being disorderly and disturbing the peace in his neighborhood. Do you really want to completely repeal a law that protects *you* from "common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior"?

:Sgt. Crowley was wrongfully taught, like all officers, that if they say anything to a citizen and the citizen doesn’t instantly comply he is disorderly or resisting arrest.

Oh really Dr. Shelton? How do you know this? Did you go to police academy with Sgt. Crowley? Does the phrase talking through your hat mean anything to you?

:Resisting arrest is also abused by the police. A natural instinct is to resist handcuffing as this really is an assault.

I have been assaulted and I have been handcuffed. I would not characterize the simple act of hand-cuffing as an "assault" although it can be somewhat painful if or when the hand-cuffs are too tight as has happened to me all of once. Even then I publicly complimented the two officers who arrested me for their on the whole very professional, respectful, and even cordial conduct.

:The law should be changed and narrowed so that if one twitches one will not be charged with resisting arrest, and verbal tirades against the officer should not be considered resisting arrest.

I do not believe that verbal tirades against police officers should be encouraged any more than verbal tirades against you and I should be encouraged Dr. Shelton. I am surprised that a doctor of *any* kind would want to encourage verbal abuse against anyone. Well I guess we can leave PhDs like "Dr." Gates out of this. . .

:Officers are supposed to be professional, despite verbal abuse.

Sure but why encourage it? Why not discourage it with a comparatively minor criminal charge or even just a non-criminal fine?

:The Sgt. is taught to lure loud persons, even if they are simply loudly protesting violation of the law and their civil rights, out into a public area so they can claim the person is disorderly.

Really?

:Prof. Gates should realize that officers have the most rudimentary understanding and training in the law. 

Sgt. Crowley should realize that Harvard professors have the most rudimentary understanding and training in civility. . . Oh dear did I just slander and/or libel Harvard professors?

:This is why they over-reach and abuse DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws. They really don’t know what they mean in detail and the laws are too over-reaching and/or vague, making them ripe for abuse.

I agree that DC laws may need to be tweaked a bit and clarified so as to minimize the possibility of their misuse and abuse.

:There is a concept of “void for vagueness” in law that a criminal statute is unconstitutional because it is impermissably vague. The US Supreme Court needs to hear a case like that of Prof. Gates if he should sue for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of civil rights.

I doubt professor Gates is very interested in taking his dubious case against Cambridge police officers to any court any more Dr. Shelton. The last thing he wants are the police recordings of his uncommon ranting and railing being made public, although hopefully that will happen soon in any case. . .

:They need to clarify these laws and narrow and define them better so the public knows what they can and cannot do and police will no longer be able to abuse these DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws by arresting anyone who disagrees with them, twitches, or claims harassment or false arrest.

Agreed.

:Prof. Gates is right that African-Americans are still profiled and abused by the police.

Correct but I do not believe that *he* was profiled and abused by the police in this case. Quite frankly his outlandish hyperbole about how "outrageous" and "horrendous" and "terrifying" and "humiliating" his arrest was is a pathetic joke. . . You insult thousands of completely innocent African Americans who have endured genuinely humiliating, outrageous, terrifying and horrendous experiences that make your professionally handled arrest for disorderly conduct look like a joyride. Can you say "lynching" Dr. Gates?

:However, I do not think this was Sgt. Crowley’s main issue.

It wasn't. "Dr." Gates was neither profiled nor abused by Sgt. James Crowley or any other Cambridge police officer.

:His main issue appears to be the fact that he is an omnipotent, all-powerful, officer with unlimited power, who has been given an inch of power and taught to take a mile of power, who must be instantly obeyed no matter what he says.

WRONG. Sgt. Crowley is by no means an omnipotent, all-powerful, officer with unlimited power. Had he been out of seriously out of line in his conduct he might have faced consequences for his police misconduct. In fact President Obama's good friend professor Gates probably has more real power than Sgt. Gates and he tried to abuse his personal power and influence with his "You don't know who I am" act. . . I am still waiting for Gates to face serious consequences for his conduct which included attempting to publicly humiliate Sgt. Crowley. . .

:I don’t say this to criticize Sgt. Crowley –

No of course not Dr. Shelton. Not any more than President Barack Obama said that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" to criticize Sgt. Crowley. . .

:this is what he was taught and as an officer, this is constantly re-enforced in his training.

You no next to nothing about Sgt. Crowley's training Dr. Sheltoon. Do you know that Sgt. Crowley teaches a course about prevention of racial profiling?

:He is not at fault.

Finally I can say RIGHT!

:His training and the vague and easily abused law is at fault.

I am not convinced that Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct law was actually abused in this case. It seems that Dr. Gates' conduct as described by the police and independent witnesses fit the description of a "common railer" and "disturber of the peace".

:This is his understanding of his DUTY under the law.

Correct.

:He should be taught that people have rights and one can de-escalate a situation by backing off and shutting up,

I am confident that Sgt. Crowley was taught that years ago Dr. Shelton. In fact I have reasonable grounds to believe that he *teaches* that people have rights. Come to think of it Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. should be taught that people, including police officers, have rights and one can de-escalate a situation by backing off and shutting up. . .

:instead of being in a persons face and challenging them when they are upset by the wrongful or mistaken actions of others.

Was it a wrongful or mistaken actions of Sgt. Crowley to ask Henry Gates to step out onto his porch? Nope. . . You said so yourself. . . Was it a wrongful or mistaken action for Sgt. Crowley to ask Henry Gates to provide some identification? I don't think so. Standard police procedure. Was it a wrongful or mistaken action for Sgt. Crowley to ask professor Gates to calm down? The only person who, according to his own testimony knowingly and willfully got in a person's face and challenging them was one Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. aka The Nutty Professor.

We should also be pleased that the police responded to the call of someone breaking in the house. Sgt. Crowley appropriately asked Gates to initially step outside because he was there alone, needed to protect himself in the open, didn’[t know if Gates was the burgler or the homeowner and if homeowner, didn’t know if a burglar was still inside. However, we should insist they receive more training so that when they come on a situation and find out it is different than what they were told, they don’t act like robots and proceed to act as if the information was true or lure someone into an arrest just because they are being verbally challenged. This is the part I consider stupid. The whole thing would have been different if the law was clarified and Crowley would have backed off and not considered Gates “disorderly.”

I urge Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley, and President Obama to acknowledge these facts. I would like the three of them to meet and discuss these issues and come up with a plan to solve the problem. AG Eric Holder should be part of this meeting. If Obama is truly a mediator – HE SHOULD DO THIS! I would volunteer to mediate if the President doesn’t feel he has time to do so. Perhaps Mr. Gregory on Meet the Press would have them all on the show – I’d even be happy to mediate on Meet the Press

Presumptuous, reductionist tripe.  You have absolutely no knowledge what Officer Crowley was taught to do, and yet you repeatedly refer to that as a reason for his supposed misbehavior.  You clearly have not heard any of the recordings of the indicent, and yet you claim to have such intimate knowledge as to allow you to reveal what Officer Crowley's "main issue" was that night.  You magnanimously proclaim that Officer Crowley "is not to blame", which presupposes that there was anything about his behavior that might merit blame. 

A week ago I would have been highly suspicious of your claim to possess a PhD.  But if our eucational system has devolve to the point that a Harvard professor must resort to comments like "your mama", I suppose I should not be surprised to find such vapid commentary as this outside of a middle school creative writing class.

If there is anything positive about having subjected myself to your little missive, it is that it reminde me of something one of my own professors used to say: Stupidity is hereditary... but ignorance is voluntary.

Very few people would have used the term "ad hominis", rather than "ad hominem".  Am I correct that you are a physician, a product of the Roman Catholic Church, or both?  For the record, though, the ad hominem logical fallicy seeks to discredit the argument by impugning the person making said argument.  My comments were quite the opposite.  Your claims were utterly devoid of substance or facts, which in turn is an indictment on the person - specifically, you.  My statements were, in fact, entirely appropriate - regardless of how uncomfortable you might find them.

You believe that you "know a lot about" police training.  Have you ever actually gone through any police training?  Do you also claim to know about police training in every police department in the country?  More to the point, do you have any substantive knowledge about what training Officer Crowley may or may not have received?  Even if his departmental training was insufficient, do you know whether he has availed himself of any supplemental training? 

The inescapable truth is that you, yourself engaged in the logical fallicy of sweeping generalization.  You believe that all police training is deficient, therefore Officer Crowley's training was insufficient.  Furthermore, you then apply your faulty logic to the events leading up to Mr. Gates' arrest - an incident of which you have no direct knowledge.  I have little doubt that you will now carry Officer Crowley's effigy into your next crusade, as a specific example of police misbehavior and abuse.  It is no ad hominem attack to observe that you belittle yourself and your credentials by engaging in such behavior.  I affirm what I only hinted at previously: yours must have been a very special eduction indeed.

I would have saved myself some time, had I simply looked you up on Google first.  You were convicted of battery of a police officer?  You had yourself declared indigent, so that the state would be forced to pay for your legal defense, and subsequently demanded that the state pay for a host of expert witnesses?  You fired your legal counsel mid-stream, so that you would have a built in excuse for an appeal?  No wonder you accept Gates' side of the story without question.  I also see why you would be afraid of ad hominem attacks.  There is so much about you that would tend to discredit any argument you might make.

You aren't an activist, you're a moonbat.  Tin foil hats come in all shapes and sizes.  And although indigent, you are not so poverty stricken that you cannot afford a computer with which to troll for other conspiracy theorists.  I see that I was correct about you being a physician (or at least claiming to be).  If, by chance, you self-medicate, I recommend lithium and Thorazine.

Crowley is in trouble.

He lied on his report and got caught.

Amazingly, Crowley also used the race card.

I now believe everything Gates told us about the incident and nothing that the police said.

This is awkward considering Gates, Crowley and Obama are to have a beer at the White House.

If I where Gates I would be absolutely disgusted with that thought.

Crowley is an evil man and I got my proof from his own actions and no where else.

If Gates never said or did another thing about this incident it wouldn't matter.

Crowley hurt Crowley when he lied on his report.

If there is any type of internal police governance then Crowley is toast even if Gates drops the issue.

It's past that now.

It's out of Gates hands.

Don't listen to me or any other person about this case.

Read the 911 call transcripts, the police radio transcripts, the statement from the 911 caller and compair that to the police report.

Crowley should resign now.

He's in trouble.

I do not believe Crowley should resign. I don't believe in crucifying people who made mistakes based on the training they received. Its the culture of the police across the country and the training that must be changed, along with tightening up abused laws such as disorderly conduct, trespass, and resisting arrest, so that they are not so vague as to be both unconstitutional and ripe for abuse by officers who are trained to abuse these laws.

Sgt. Crowley is a dedicated officer who should learn from this experience and train others to be more professional and to more vigorously defend the Constitution.

The most outstanding comments I've seen on this incident to date from a high ranking officer, police educator, and Ph.D are at:

http://www.policelink.com/news/articles/114109-response-to-national-racial-debate-gates-crowley-and-the-president?page=1

Really Loved S. Colbert's comments tonight:

When the "racism fart" appears and "curls your hair" don't dwell on it like dwelling on your grandpa's farts, "crack the window", "cover it up with potpourri" ("change the subject"). The message, racism is there, everyone farts, don't dwell on it.

Tonight's comments on "the Word" on the Stephen Colbert Report by Stephen Colbert - truly hysterical comedy tonight!