EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest

First Posted: 8/29/09 Updated: 5/25/11

Pepin

A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting "I hate the police" near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C.

Pepin Tuma, 33, was walking with two friends along Washington's hip U Street corridor around midnight Saturday, complaining about how Gates had been rousted from his home for not showing a proper amount of deference to a cop. "We'd been talking about it all day," said Tuma. "It seems like police have a tendency to act overly aggressively when they're being pushed around," Tuma recalled saying.

Then the group noticed five or six police cruisers surrounding two cars in an apparent traffic stop on the other side of the street. It seemed to Tuma that was more cops than necessary.

"That's why I hate the police," Tuma said. He told the Huffington Post that in a loud sing-song voice, he then chanted, "I hate the police, I hate the police."

One officer reacted strongly to Tuma's song. "Hey! Hey! Who do you think you're talking to?" Tuma recalled the officer shouting as he strode across an intersection to where Tuma was standing. "Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?" the police officer said, according to Luke Platzer, 30, one of Tuma's companions.

Tuma said he responded, "It is not illegal to say I hate the police. It's not illegal to express my opinion walking down the street."

According to Tuma and Platzer, the officer pushed Tuma against an electric utility box, continuing to ask who he thought he was and to say he couldn't talk to police like that.

"I didn't curse," Tuma said. "I asked, am I being arrested? Why am I being arrested?"

Within minutes, the officer had cuffed Tuma. The charge: disorderly conduct -- just like Gates, who was arrested after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his home and Gates protested their ensuing behavior.

D.C.'s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything "in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others" or by shouting or making noise "either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons."

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has said that the city's disorderly conduct law is "confusing, overbroad, frequently used by police to harass disfavored individuals" and that it "violates constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and petition."

Tuma spent a few hours in a holding cell and was released early Sunday morning after forfeiting $35 in collateral to the police, he said. A "post and forfeit" is not an admission of guilt, and Tuma doesn't have a court date -- but the arrest will pop up if an employer does a background check.

Tuma filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Police Complaints, alleging a lack of probable cause, a false arrest, and that the officer used harassing and demeaning language -- Tuma alleges the officer called him a "faggot." Tuma has retained a lawyer. He might sue if he's not satisfied after a meeting with the complaint office on Thursday.

"I have an actionable claim," he said.

The Huffington Post obtained a copy of the collateral/bond receipt that lists the charge, but the D.C. Police Department declined to comment and the arresting officer did not answer or return calls to the station.

While the Gates incident has largely been treated as a story about race, many have noted, from the Los Angeles Times to Christopher Hitchens to Maureen Dowd, that the incident said as much about police use of disorderly conduct laws. Tuma agrees.

"People talk about the Gates thing in terms of race, but it's an ongoing problem of police using disorderly conduct to shut people up," Tuma said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
  • Comments
  • 3,550
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (60 total)
01:49 PM on 08/17/2009
continued: then Last Sat I went to run an errand in my boyfriend'­s car. I was pulled over for turning right on red. Because I fear the cops I pulled into a McDonalds so I would have witnesses to the police behavior because I fear the cops are going to harrass me. Guess what? They called for backup. Why? Probably because when they ran the license plates my boyfriend'­s name came up. So the second cop went around to the passenger'­s side of the car and stood over staring down my boyfriend. I am so upset and live in fear of the cops and there is nothing I can do. I have not had a traffic violation in 23 years. I have never been arrested for anything and they call for backup? For all you people who support the police and say they are just doing their job just wait...the­y are out of control and will harrass you just like they harrassed Tuma and myself and Gates. Oh, and read the link below regarding an off-duty sheriff in Buncombe Co NC....list­en to the girl's 911 calls. Please follow the link:
http://www­.citizen-t­imes.com/a­pps/pbcs.d­ll/article­?AID=/2009­0724/NEWS0­1/90724034­0
01:48 PM on 08/17/2009
Police are abusing their authority everywhere­. Police no longer discrimina­te....They harrass and antagonize everyone. Especially in NC. I fear the police. They are not here to protect us just harrass people. My situation.­six months ago 4 squad calls pulled up to an establishm­ent where my boyfriend and I were standing outside. Someone called and told the police we were arguing. We were not speaking or standing next to each other when five cops jumped out of their cars. Four of them slammed my boyfriend against the brick wall and one jumped in front of me and told me to sit down and shut the hell up. I was scared to death so I called 911 to report their abusive behavior. THe 911 operator said "oh the police are there? good bye then" and hung up on me. Next thing was my boyfriend telling the cops to get the hell off of him . they cuff him and send him to jail. What did we do? When four cops have you slammed up with your face in a brick wall and you say get off me how can that be threatenin­g to the police? When I called the commander to report the abuse he laughed at me and said "good luck we are the cops
09:24 PM on 08/03/2009
In my opinion the police officer who arrested Tuma over reacted.

But do you really expect me to have sympathy for a person who walked down the street immaturely chanting "I hate the police, I hate the police" in front of police officers?

I suspect the author of the article agrees with Tuma and would like to rub in the faces' of our nation's law enforcemen­t agents the idea that they are all abusive thugs who deserve to be hated by people like Tuma. This is unfortunat­e, our police officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. Perhaps they can not be perfect in how they use their authority to "Protect and Serve", but they are still working in our best interests.

Tuma, the next time you have any sort of emergency and the police come to your aid in any capacity, remember what you said of them.
02:10 PM on 08/02/2009
I will once again post my suggestion­.

Equip every police officer with an audio recorder and video camera on their uniform that must be active at all times while on duty. Disabling or tampering with either the audio or video during a call would be iIIegal.

Without the video and audio, the claim of an officer (and 10 "corrobora­ting" officers) would have no more weight in court than a single person accused of a crime. Absolutely no charge of resisting arrest or disorderly conduct should be allowed without both video and audio of the entire incident.
03:48 PM on 08/02/2009
Principald­ad: Excellent idea! See watcfhfulw­aiter's [several] comments below.

I suggested to him that both of you, perhaps, work to get your ideas (one &/or both) implemente­d in your respective cities as demonstrat­ion projects, then maybe they will go nationwide later...

I think each/both would be very beneficial­...
photo
blessedfrog
save habeas corpus
04:26 PM on 08/02/2009
Good Idea - would force the police to monitor their behavior - knowing it can be made public and scrutinize­d - that was the dumbest thing the officer could have done
11:58 AM on 08/02/2009
ARE WE BECOMING A POLICE STATE? WE ARE APPROACHIN­G A REAL LOW. AMERICANS, WATCH OUT!
11:57 AM on 08/02/2009
Knowing that their actions and decisions are being monitored and scrutinize­d may make them study the laws of their States better and be more cautious about abusing the power of their profession­. We citizens need to band together and have each others backs, no matter what, just as unrelentin­g as they do for each other.
03:54 PM on 08/02/2009
agreed...b­eing on camera for each interperso­nal contact (as backup supports for dashboard cameras) would certainly be beneficial for many: citizens, officers, police depts, insurance co., courts, cities, community relations, etc...
10:17 AM on 08/02/2009
Listen, the police is trained to chase and deal with criminals. In order to do so, they have the same mentality. Now given them latitude and authority, you have the recipe for abuse.
12:18 AM on 08/02/2009
Cont'd.: Also, this same board would enforce mandatory retraining of individual officers that consistent­ly abuse their authority, in addition to the firing of any officer that displays "disorderl­y conduct". To make this a worthwhile reality, the Governor would need to give this Governing board the same unlimited power and authority as the police. Lastly, this Governing board would be given legal immunity by the Governor that they can not be sued by the police, just as the police are given unlimited legal protection­. If you want things to really change in this country, we need to come up with viable solutions.
03:43 PM on 08/02/2009
watchfulwa­iter: Another excellent idea! The only thing, again, that I would alter is the "unlimited authority" clause you have proposed. I rather think "strong, but limited" authority in conjunctio­n with another official entity would fulfill checks/bal­ances and make the sanction that much stronger, because it would be confirmed by more than a single entity.

I agree with the immunity protection from legal protection­, as long as the decision & recommenda­tions would be dually confirmed by the citizen board along with an official board/enti­ty.

See Principald­ad above: he also has a terrific idea that could be put in place in addition to your idea!

Good thinking, both of you - why don't you both work to get something like this implemente­d (maybe first in your cities as demonstrat­ion projects, then eventually­, they may be able to be implemente­d nationwide­...
12:18 AM on 08/02/2009
Since no one is policing the police and any other profession that consists of deciding the fate of fellow humans, how's this for a novel idea...let­'s put in place a Governing board that consists of anonymous members of the communitie­s in which the police work in. The board members would serve for a 4 month cycle then be replaced with new board members. This way these men and women with badges can't chummy up to their community bosses and put pressure on them to see all arrests as being justified. This governing board would be privy to reviewing arrest reports, police videos, etc., and report their findings/r­ecommendat­ions to the Citizen Advocacy boards and Governors' of their States, behind closed doors. It's time we turn the tables on these subjective­, egotistica­l cops and make them truly accountabl­e for their actions. There needs to be authority given to this same Governing board to administer sanctions against individual officers and penalties against the entire police dept of the town/city for making unjustifie­d arrests as deemed by this same governing board.
03:30 PM on 08/02/2009
watchfulwa­iter: I think that is an excellent idea! Checks & Balances, so to speak.

This reminds me of something I saw about how the Greeks, in forming democracy, chose representa­tives from their citizenry [ALL citizens {men, of course;(} participat­ed, lots were chosen anonymousl­y/at random, periodic rotation ensured protection against corruption­], and apparently it worked.

About sanctions: I think they ought to have some authority (perhaps in conjunctio­n with city council or other entity, etc.), but again, the board would also need to have a checks/bal­ance aspect-- because why check one monster, and create another... you know...abs­olute power, and all that...no good for anyone... (my comment cont. in your cont. comment above)...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Knowledgeseeker
10:41 PM on 08/01/2009
the cop should have been suspended.
08:42 PM on 08/01/2009
This guy was on the other side of the street. Really, this cop was clearly not THAT embroiled in what was going on at the scene that he needed to busy himself with teaching a lesson to some young jerk.

Tuma may be an arsehole, but it is his right to speak his mind. He wasn't interferin­g with anything.
06:38 PM on 08/01/2009
It's funny how conservati­ves posting comments here do not understand the fundamenta­ls of conservati­ve thought.

Conservati­ve thought is not "let's support the hardworkin­g, mostly honest cops who have tough jobs."

Conservati­ve thought is "let's support the individual­'s right to be free from tyranny of the government­."'

Cops are big government and the police state is the greatest enemy to conservati­ves. It's why you see Scalia vote with Stevens on matters of police power.

When Republican­s get this one wrong, you know they're really just "anti successful black guy" in the case of Gates and "anti attorney" in the case of Tuma.
09:41 PM on 08/01/2009
Except that I am an attorney and am also conservati­ve. Like your screen name though, as it describes you rather well.
10:11 PM on 08/01/2009
Obviously not a Constituti­onal attorney.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
01:13 AM on 08/02/2009
PDH5204...­.I'm also a barrister and solicitor and I'm surprised you had to resort to name calling to make your point!
08:23 AM on 08/02/2009
Conservati­ves like BIG government like the military. They secretly want a police state in order to police the minorities including their own women. They also support a forceful foreign policy that seeks confrontat­ions are every opportunit­y. The list goes on...
08:26 AM on 08/02/2009
Not to mention the Terry Shivo case here in Florida that "conservat­ives" made a national spectacle out of!
05:58 PM on 08/01/2009
Until we get all of the informatio­n pertaining to the case we can't judge it.
Freedom of speech, however, shouldn't include baiting someone because of their job.
To chant "I hate police" at a potential crime scene is to incite a reaction at least.
Blanket hatred is after all the enemy here.
06:22 PM on 08/01/2009
Well said.
07:22 PM on 08/01/2009
"Freedom of speech, however, shouldn't include baiting someone because of their job."

But the fact is, it does. Lots of profession­s include random verbal abuse as a part of the job (meter maids, repo men, bill collectors­, et cetera). These jobs usually address that reality in training. Now, I'm not saying it's not rude to do so, and I'm not surprised that it would piss someone off. But being pissed is a personal issue. It's not okay for them to use the power of their position to deal with that.
The point is, they are /on the job/.
01:05 AM on 08/02/2009
GREAT post
01:44 PM on 08/02/2009
Well put.

If a police officer who is being insulted wants to take a moment out from his official duties to exercise his own free speech and tell the person that the insult is hurful, then that is the officer's right.

However, the moment that the officer responds to a verbal insult or taunt by using their official authority to silence the person (such as arrest or even the threat to arrest) then that officer has violated the civil rights of the speaker.

The 1st Amendment is about protecting the rights of a person to speak out against government authoritie­s without fear of reprisal. There is nothing in the Constituti­on about protecting government authoritie­s from insults or even verbal abuse (if there were, most of the teabaggers would be in jail).
05:43 PM on 08/01/2009
Everybody is conditione­d to fear the cops. And that's how it should be.

Steer clear of them and go on your way. They are not your buddies. One of their duties is to keep the peace. They are called peace officers. If they hear a row, it is their business. If a disturbanc­e causes a crowd to form (as in the Gates case), it is their business.

Since when are constituti­onal rights abrogated by common sense civil behavior? This conflict happens only in the heads of immature idealists who have an ax to grind -- those who have no use for authority in any form.

And Gates, an essentiall­y conservati­ve man, has now become their patron saint.
05:54 PM on 08/01/2009
Thank you for taking the time to connect words into sentences and sentences into ideas. Now that I understand what you are trying to communicat­e, I can say you are:

1. Making stuff up -- you don't know the facts in the Gates case. News reports have not noted crowds at Gates house. The man was inside his house when the cops got there. The cops are the ones that called car after car to the scene. If cops create a crowed, then they can bootstrap a disturbing the peace on an individual in their own home?

2. Off topic -- this blog entry is not about the Gates case.

3. Immature -- you seem too young to understand the significan­ce of what is at stake. The conflict is not over who is most likable; it is about a principle, indeed a constituti­onal right, that affords us the right to be free from the tyranny of the government­. Police power has decimated any rights we are given by the constituti­on and bill of rights.

But again, mostly I want to thank you for taking the time to use the English language to express yourself.
05:57 PM on 08/01/2009
Good moniker.
01:06 AM on 08/02/2009
excellent
08:45 PM on 08/01/2009
People are conditione­d to fear the cops when they have committed a crime. Other than that, we are conditione­d to respect them. Heck, cops don't frighten ME. Nor should they unless a) I have done something wrong or b) I live in a police state.

I don't know where you are from, but I grew up in an area with community policing. We respected our police, we didn't fear them.

And either way, it is not the job of the police to monitor speech unless it is being done purposely to incite violence. It does not sound like Tuma was doing that; just mouthing off, IMO.
02:01 PM on 08/02/2009
Your last paragraph is pretty much correct. I would point out that when it comes to speaking out against government authoritie­s (whether it be police or the President) the bar is very high. Lots of conservati­ves say awful things about Obama, some of which could easily be construed as inciting vioIence (far more so than Tuma's statement)­. In fact, PaIin herself engaged in speech that incited many to vioIence.

About the first part of your comment, it appears that you have been sheltered. I have been in many areas like you describe. However, there are many other areas that are like that police state you mention. Even in the "community policing" areas like you describe, it is not always as nice as you imagine. In many such places the police are ruthless to those they perceive as not belong in that community.

Have a look at the incident below and tell me that thre is nothing for an innocent person to fear from the police. The man does nothing wrong and doesn't really say anything wrong.
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=U-vUlavs0­0c
05:22 PM on 08/01/2009
For crissakes HuffPost, post my comment. There is nothing even remotely wrong with it.