For the moment, President Obama and many pundits have arrived at a comfortable middle ground: Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sergeant James L. Crowley each over-reacted to the now famous events at the Professor's home. The parties are apparently going to affirm that perspective with a beer at the White House. This is a calming resolution, but it sends the wrong message about the proper role of law enforcement under our Constitution.
Professor Gates is not the first person to complain about the way he was treated by a police officer. Many people have done so in language more graphic and more demonstrative than that of the good professor. The law books are full of cases which provide helpful guidance to law enforcement in these difficult interactions. Notwithstanding the issues of race and class that dominate the public discussion of the Gates matter, these cases involve a broad range of people. Some of the cases involve minorities; some do not. They include people from all walks of life and socio-economic background. Many of the cases arise out of the use of vague "disorderly conduct" laws, as was the case with Professor Gates. Other examples involve the enforcement of very specific prohibitions on the use of a particular category of speech in addressing a police officer, like cursing, or obscene or opprobrious language.
No matter the specifics of the law being enforced, controlling principles have become well established in the courts. People, including arrestees, have a right to free speech allowing them to protest their treatment to the arresting officer. According to the Supreme Court, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." To be certain, these rights are not absolute. The speech is not protected if it constitutes a true threat or "fighting words" -- "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction." Mere vulgarity and humiliation are not enough.
Of course the notion that the police can legitimately respond with force in the face of epithets seems strangely at odds with the concept of the modern law enforcement professional. The courts agree. As Justice Powell wrote in the seminal case, Lewis v. City of New Orleans, "a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than an average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words'."
So, what should Sergeant Crowley have done when Professor Gates allegedly complained quite loudly of being profiled and made a reference to Crowley's "mama"? To begin, he should not have felt threatened. After all, Professor Gates is of slight frame, has limited physical mobility and walks with a cane. The sergeant was well advised not only to listen to Justice Powell, but also to heed the age-old parental guidance on the potential injury from "sticks and stones," as compared to words. He was bound to conclude that Gate's words were protected because a properly trained police officer acting reasonably would not lose his cool over these comments and use force against Gates. In short, he should have walked away. Police business was over; it was no time to sulk or avenge the alleged insults.
It also was no time to order the Professor out of his own home where the alleged presence of neighbors and the continued harangue by Gates was supposedly additional grounds for arrest. The decisions of Massachusetts' own state courts simply do not allow arrests for disorderly conduct because a person uses loud, non-inciteful language in the presence of a small number of peaceful individuals who gather at the scene of an arrest. This limitation under state law should have been known to a reasonable police officer.
Everyone knows that as prudent people we ordinarily should not get "lippy" with a police officer, but Professor Gates is not guilty of violating that maxim. He was standing up for his rights. The Constitution protects our right to protest injustice, including on those occasions when we are the victims. Gates was exercising his rights and Crowley violated them.
There is no middle ground.
Loading comments… 
Who would have ever considered that Mr. Grossman would be in favor of deleting speech from the definition of Hate Crimes?
This does not apply to any other group. Just black men. They might know the President!
This is an article from the Harvard Crimson.
http://www
And following this up by inviting the arrogant jerk and the police officer (or the abused handicappe
It is, as the Big O observed, a teachable moment.
http://www
Defending his rights, O.k. someone could stand out in front of the NAACP and yell racial epithets about black people. Then they could go to a haulocost museum and start yelling about how it never happened, and for good measure stop by a battered women's shelter and yell about how they somehow had it coming.
You can be well within your rights while spewing foul incindiary garbage out of your mouth.
But Gates racial comments were against white men so no foul.
The informatio
Why are you incapable of seeing what's right in front of your face.
The police report is null and void.
Crowley was caught lying in it.
He said in his report that he spoke to the 911 caller when he arrived and she said "two black males with backpacks entered the house".
She claims she had no conversati
This is clearly Crowley covering his ass.
The rest of the report must be tossed out the window as well.
All the accusation
Please reply to my post so I know you got it.
It seems this informatio
Do you now understand why your thoughts on this issue have been distorted by a false police report?
By Jane R. Elgass
If you’ve got a good one, chances are you brighten other people’s day. If you’ve got a bad one, you may be alienating colleagues at work and even your friends. And a bad one may be costing you a promotion or appointmen
“Studies have shown that people want to be with those who have a good attitude, In fact, for some employers, a good attitude is sometimes a more important considerat
Attitude has a lot to do with interperso
Civil liabilitie
This case has legs.
It's people like us that need to get those legs moving because there's a lot of resistance to that happening.
The cops want this issue to go away so an investigat
The media isn't interested in exploring the rights issue because to them this is a human interest story.
Gates thinks it's only a profiling case.
Obama already cured them with special powers beer.
No one wants to believe that cops lie.
The only people who win if this case gets explored is an abstract idea called "the People".
We got to get those legs moving.
It's beginning to look like weekend at Bernie's.
Thank you for your 28-yr service as a retired police officer. I read your comments with rapt attention. From your comments, l am not so sure if you read the real police report.
Here is the deal. In the entire report, Sgt. Cowley did not state how he found himself inside Prof. Gates house. As a former police officer, do you think it is appropriat
If only what Sgt. Cowley wanted was to verify if Gate was the bona fide resident of the address, he would have stayed outside the front door for Prof. Gate to fetch the requested two photo ids. When Gate went in to get the two photo ids, Sgt. Cowley opened his door without permission and followed Gate in tow. This is why Prof. Gate got angry and wented to report to the police chief by inquiring through a third-part
That's why we were trained how to respond to such verbal assaults using "verbal judo". This is the use of words to defuse the antaganist or to calm him down. Even with this exceptiona
Everyone in the media that blames Crowley for giving in to his feelings of anger are talking from a position of Monday morning quarterbac
The author of this story is however wrong that Gates was right in his behavior. Simply because he is legally allowed to spout off at the officer it was not "right" or "proper". It was inconsider
Crowley, in my humble opinion, failed to handle a citizen who was aggravated at his presence -- particular
With Officers Crowley, Figueroa and Lashley in addition to at least 3 more from Cambridge and at least 2 more officers from Harvard, SURELY Crowley could have found someone among the group to talk Gates down, if he couldn't. In fact Sgt. Lashley told Anderson Cooper and the NYT that if he had handled the call, the situation would have ended differentl
"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibi
However, it misses the second part. The personalit
"We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."
We pay police, and they serve us. They answer to us, not the other way around.
You know your stuff.
I'm not talking about knowledge of police par say but rather humans.
Naturally there will be those attracted to the job because it takes care of a lack within themselves and often, becoming a cop is the refuge of the powerless.
Unfortunat
To show "I'm powerful!"
The problem I have observed is the testing of cops has changed and become bizarre in it's own right.
The evaluation includes a psychologi
Supposedly
Sought out is the ability to follow orders.
So now we have powerless unquestion
It's a bad combinatio
And that combinatio
And Sticks and stones will break your bones and are unlawfull to hit people with ( except in hockey)
And Words won't ever hurt you. If they do . Toughen Up!