Is there a non-racial explanation for why the Cambridge MA police department would arrest Skip Gates for breaking into his own home, and then continue to insist after a huge outcry that they did the right thing?
My guess is that Sergeant James Crowley was following an inflexible rule that you arrest anyone who shouts angrily at a cop. This may be a good general rule to identify dangerous persons, and having many such rules allows the department to cope with an enormous policing task with limited staff. The support that Sergeant Crowley attracted from other policeman elsewhere may reflect their sympathy with such rules (although the New York Times found wide variations in the extent to which this particular rule is followed).
All organizations have rules for their staff, whose purposes is saving on costs and staff time by prescribing routine responses to different situations. McDonalds makes a ton of money by having rules that can be implemented on a large scale by a relatively small and unskilled staff. As usual in economics, however, there are tradeoffs. Robotic rules may lead to stupid outcomes, outraging and driving away the customers.
I once had a customer service person insist that I could not return a bookcase because I had already opened the box. She admitted I had a valid reason for returning it -- that it was missing a crucial set of screws -- which I could only have discovered by opening the box. But no amount of argument could make her depart from the rule against open box returns. (After further persistence, I eventually got the company to give me the missing screws.)
So organizations choose rule policies that find the sweet spot trading off lower costs of inflexible rules against possibly even higher costs of outraging the customers with stupid outcomes. For private firms, the sweet spot is determined by supply and demand -- consumers may be willing to put up with a small amount of stupid outcomes from rules that get them a cheaper product. So a rule is not automatically bad because it leads on a few occasions to a stupid result.
Obviously, the police rule in Gates' case led to a stupid outcome. The question is what is the sweet spot for police departments? The key problem is that public bureaucracies don't respond directly to customer demand in finding their sweet spot, it's politically determined. Since many of the suspect "customers" are poor or powerless, police departments likely choose to err on the side of sticking to the rules and putting up with the outraged suspects. And of course, blacks have historically been even more vulnerable to police abuse because of their lack of equal political rights and voice.
All of which suggests something more damning than stupid behavior by one policeman -- it looks like the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department has chosen a sweet spot easy on its own officers and hard on citizens -- and perhaps even more so when the citizens are black. The real problem here is that the Cambridge Police (and many other government bureaucracies) do not feel themselves to be as accountable to the citizens as they must be in a democratic society.
Follow William Easterly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bill_easterly
The President had to admit after he got more information that Officer Crowley is an outstanding officer and good man. We all need to accept that now. We don't want racial divisions, do we?
We need to show the world we are happy being of many colors and races. No other country has as much diversity, do they?
It makes us special. Now let's show them our colors.
I don't see the relevance of Professor Gates' "suspicious behavior." His arrest was not related to the alleged break-in; there was no longer any suspicion of such criminal activity. By then Sgt. Crowley knew who Professor Gates was, and that he was in his own home.
I disagree with Colin Powell, and believe it is prudent to remain inside your own home until you know more about why police officers are present and what their intentions are. Police officers, even outstanding officers and good men, make mistakes with irrevocable consequences.
The only option is to cow tow or go to jail.
They care less about the fact you got locked out and have to fix a door and then follow orders after proving you own the place. It is about who is boss. Keep the cars comming because a 150 lb old man on a cane is giving me lip.
In Texas Gates would have been tazered and gone to jail in an ambulance.
3 a: individual choice or judgment b: power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds
4: the result of separating or distinguishing
Automaton -- 1: a mechanism that is relatively self-operating ; especially : robot
2: a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions
3: an individual who acts in a mechanical fashion
All definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com
Can be found if you type in the following link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terrance-heath/back-to-black-man-101_b_24608.html
Cops can be brave and honorable (but sometimes they're NOT); and the ones who band together behind them, in defense of those rotten apples (just because they're in the same profession) are worse than the bullies because they are cowardly cops.
On the whole, this officer didn't assault Professor Gates nor is there really any indication that he initiated the confrontation (unless you consider doing his job instigating, apperantly some people do). He should not have arrested Professor Gates for dis-orederly conduct because he fealt insulted.
Professor Gates played a very large role in the altercation as well. Let's be fair, Officer Crowley (whom we don't know to be a racist) is also a citizen of this country and no matter his profession or training should not have to endure unwarranted racial slandering, and various insults for fulfilling his duty as a public servant. A lot of things that cops do piss us off. Myself included. I can't even watch an episode of cops on T.V. because I get too P.O'd at some of the cops attitudes. Having said that the police are a necessary part of our society. Working to pass legislation to prohibit police abuse of authority and or working to remove petty catch-all charges like dis-orderly conduct are all viable avenues that we as americans can and should pursue. Antagonizing a cop while he is on duty is not how you fix these things.
Let's not judge every situation involving a cop out of our own personal bias, as it seems clear in this case that Professor Gates did just that.
Skip Gates was irate because he had to break-in to his own house and someone saw fit to call the Cops on him.
I would have been plenty upset, too.
But, when Gates produced his identification, showing that he was in his home, ... The Constitution trumps the Cambridge P.D. Procedures and entitles Gates to be as crazy, disorderly and obnoxious as he might might want to be, or get, under the circumstances as they were.
When a Veteran, starched and pressed, Sergeant with any degree of swagger encounters an angry and irate individual, ... the outcome is always the same.
The Sergeant will go by the book.
No matter what it says in the book.
Just as long as he knows its in the book and he can do it.
Case dismissed!
The woman who phoned the police did not know who was breaking into the house.
This is a very important distinction because it seriously changes the nature of what was really going on. Your trying to build some case for "let's all get the black man" and it's not supported. Just as you jumped to the conclusion that the woman knew he was breaking into his own home, maybe Professor Gates jumped to the conclusion that the police were there to harras him. Jumping to conclusions is how this whole thing blew up.
When the Professor let loose his fury over the officer's continued inability to leave his home after ID had been procured, the officer reacted to the proposed hysteria of an indignant gay man, and acted stupidly and immaturely in a flagrant abuse of power, albeit from a little man posing as an authority on racial profiling.
I beleive this is why Profesor Gates would prefer the matter drop quietly, rather than have this knowledge leak out, that might damage his reputation. Why give in to such brutality? Why forego honor for anonymity?
We might begin to stand up for the truth, rather than run from difficult situations, simply because they are difficult.
I suggest Officer Crowley receive some much needed sensitivity training, let go of his personal baggage, and try to think of a better reason to become a cop than work out his own personal issues from his past on someone else.
I support Professor Gates completely.
And will continue to do so.
It is amazing that the most vocal folks on this subject are people who don't know what happened.
Except what they read in the papers and hear on blogs written by folks who weren't there and don't know. Except what they read in the papers...... etc..... See where this goes?? Quit it...
But speculation as to motive or what either man "felt" is fruitless. You either believe what one has said or the other. There is no evidence and there will be no evidence, only testimony. But there is evidence of egregious abuse of power when it comes to the actual arrest. The police will say they have wide discretion on DC. But the law says otherwise.
Yes Officer Crowley was on duty and has a responsibility to conduct himself in a fair and professional manner at all times. This includes dealing with upset or irate citizens.
Where I differ from Bill Mahar and most of the posters on this issue is that as a grown man, and responsible citizen, Professor Gates also has a responsibility to behave in a reasonable fasion. I am not willing to look at Professor Gates as if he is a child. When children throw temper tantrums and call names and in general behave inapropriately we understand that they are children and have not fully matured. If I treat with Professor Gates or any other African American as I would a child it is dis-respectful. Even if I do so out of the intention of fostering racial amnesty.
If Professor Gates conducts himself in a mature and orderly mannor and is arrested then I am on his or any person's side in that situation. That is not the case in this instance.
The officer was not asking Professor Gates to kiss his butt as Mahar has stated. The officer in this case was simply doing his job, but made the mistake of being white while he did it.
Ok, but I also have something to say to the other-side, the Gates fans........I feel Gates MUST file a civil suit. NO EXCUSES, please . HE HAS TOO.....If he's Mr. Innocent, then he needs to take action for being violated. I know I WOULD if it was me.........So if he does this,"lets forget this", "let bygones be bygone", then I will have to call him a phony. Because if I was violated, I darn well want my day-in court and reparations. If he doesn't, then most Americans have a right to say, "whats he hiding", "what doesn't he want known", "hmm, why the back-tracking", etc., etc. .....Whats that old saying, "if your gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.".....A Civil trial will bring EVERYTHING out into the open. The FACTS ! ....Gates has too.
For the most part nurses, waitresses, and others required to deal with the public don't have to deal with the potential of getting shot on the job. While policemen should try to be polite it needn't be high on their priority list.
We can can talk about an officer's responsibilities all day. What about ours? I have bad days just like Professor Gates and everyone else, I don't go around taking it out on other people though.
Gates is such an elitist (from my observation of his behavior) that he really believed he was above having to answer questions from a lowly police officer who was so below him in class.
Gates then continued to appeal to the public through his blog (the root) claiming racial profiling and abuse. He called on the President to back him up. After all "do you know who I am?!".
The President needs to throw him under the bus. And they told us it didn't matter who his friends were.
So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct." Posted from this site.
So I ask of you what was the bigger problem? The fact he was acting like a tool on his own property, or the fact that he was arrested by a police officer who has thin skin? According to Mass. court rulings....I would say the later.