The Gates Arrest’s “Teaching Moment”
Monday, July 27th, 2009My crime column this week looks at the Gates arrest, and argues that we ought to put race aside and focus instead on the overly broad arrest powers afforded to the police.
Here’s an excerpt outlining a contradiction in conservative thinking that no one has ever really been able to explain to me:
Commenting on Gates’ arrest, National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg wrote that he counts himself among those who are “deferential to police,” and willing to “give cops the benefit of the doubt for a host of reasons.” That’s a common position among conservatives. At a Federalist Society luncheon a few years ago, Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson praised the Supreme Court for “putting more trust in our police officers” in recent rulings. Los Angeles Police Department officer Jack Dunphy (a pseudonym) oddly concluded at National Review Online that the lesson from the Gates/Crowley affair is that anyone who asserts his constitutional rights when confronted by a police officer risks getting shot.
This deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
The only explanation I can come up with for the contradiction is that conservatives are more sympathetic to the targets of regulators (businesses, mostly) than they are to the targets of police and prosecutors (people accused of committing crimes). But that doesn’t change the fact that police and prosecutors are subject to the same trappings of power as other government employees, and so ought to be viewed with the same amount of skepticism. Moreso, actually, given that your average bureaucrat isn’t empowered to arrest you or put a bullet in your chest.
TheAgitator.com
I emailed Obama after the February “Coward” accusation came out suggesting that discussion of racism among the minority community would be a good start.
One of the reasons why most are unwilling to discus racism is specifically that minority racism is a taboo subject and white racism is ASSumed to be the only type of racism worthy of discussion.
I am on your side in general when it comes to the issues of police powers and abuse of authority, but this?
“Los Angeles Police Department officer Jack Dunphy (a pseudonym) oddly concluded at National Review Online that the lesson from the Gates/Crowley affair is that anyone who asserts his constitutional rights when confronted by a police officer risks getting shot.”
Are you kidding me? Did you really have to twist and mischaracterize Jack Dunphy’s opinion to advance your larger point? Zeal of that kind only undermines your cause, and invites suspicion. It does you no credit and I advise you to knock it off.
Who holds the greater responsibility to show restraint, the police sergeant or the world renowned scholar with the 27 page resume?
I dunno–which one of them has the gun?
@#50
“I never got all uppity to the police.”
Poe? Is that you?
Brad=embarrassed Dunphy
if anything Radley characterized his opinion graciously. Dunphy not only (plainly) said that if you assert your rights you risk getting shot, he also implied that it would be understandable. Radley could have said that Dunphy adopted a “girl was asking for it” defense of police brutality.
Comment #6 really captured the problem here. Yes, the police made a mistake here, but the “victim” of their mistake is so reviled and distrusted for his continuous BS that it makes a very bad example case, even making the officer look good in comparison.
Very unfortunate.
I’ve been thinking more about this contradiction you mention, and I think one thing driving it may be the way so many government programs and bureaucracies are just complete waste, but the police do actively save people from criminals on a fairly regular basis, despite what other problems the police, as an organization, have.
So, the benefits of the police force are real and, essentially, irreplaceable, while private bureaucracies and businesses could replace many government functions. Also, there are SOME good things done with the over-broad powers the police have (though I’m with you that they aren’t worth the price).
I completely agree that the police need better oversight and certainly that many police powers need to be severely reined in or removed altogether, but I think I can see some of the roots behind the apparent contradiction.
This site has for years railed against the so-called militarization of American Law Enforcement (I think some of which is over-reaction, but some isn’t, SWAT over-use is a problem). People who come here have called for a rolled back in LE, away from the “Law Enforcement” Officer model to the “Peace” Officer way of doing things, which as a police officer I whole-heartedly support. The job is and should be more about keeping the peace than enforcing arbitray government rules.
And yet, here we have a cop doing just, keeping the peace, and he catches hell for it. The prof decided to disturb the peace (from school property under his control sure, but in view of the public) and got arrested for it.
The Sgt didn’t shoot his dog, or play drug warrior, or kick down his door wearing fatigues and carrying a rifle, he answered a legitimate call for service and conducted the investigation he was required to (make sure the guy you’re talking to is the home owner and is not under duress from someone else in the house, for all a responding officer knows, some burglar is hiding in the back holding a gun to a family member’s head or something).
I wouldn’t have arrested the prof, being that he was mad at me I would have simply removed myself from the sitution as a solution to the breach of the peace, and if the man continued breaching the public peace after I’d been gone for a reasonable amount of time, then sure, i’d have gone back and made the arrest if there was no other way. But I won’t fault the Cambridge PD Sgt for acting like a Peace Officer in a field full of Law Enforcers…
And yet, here we have a cop doing just, keeping the peace, and he catches hell for it.
He didn’t keep the peace – he’s the one who disturbed it.
make sure the guy you’re talking to is the home owner and is not under duress from someone else in the house, for all a responding officer knows, some burglar is hiding in the back holding a gun to a family member’s head or something).
Wow, you would have concluded all that from a third-hand eyewitness? Talk about the Dog That Didn’t Bark. You’re a regular Sherlock Holmes to have deduced all that based on an open door!
I didn’t deduce anything Chet, and you’d know that if your rabid prejudice of all things Police weren’t showing.
I was attempting to explain why you don’t take things for granted where people are involved, because there is no such thing as a police issue crystal ball. Would you like to have to live with the fact that someone got hurt because you assumed everything was ok because the 1st person you spoke to said so. I wouldn’t.
It’s why on a domestic call you ask to speak to the spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend whatever, rather than just asking the word of the 1st person who opens the door.
For all you saying Gates should have just shown his ID: He did, although he had to go back to the kitchen to get it. It wasn’t a driver’s license – apparently he hires a driver – but the cop was satisfied with it. It was the COP who never showed ID.
Officer Crowley apparently followed Gates back to the kitchen. I say apparently because there’s a narrative gap in his report – he’s on the front porch, then he’s in the kitchen reading Gates’s ID card, with Gates screaming racism and demanding Crowley identify himself. I’m not sure about the sequence, but it seems likely that what set Gates off was turning around and finding Crowley in his kitchen, rather than waiting at the front door for Gates to get back with his ID. And I agree, it was irrational and racist of Gates to start hollering racism because of that. BUT – just exactly what was Gates’s rational for entering the house uninvited? It shouldn’t be hard to justify following Gates until he knew Gates was not a burglar, but I would expect an experienced cop like Crowley to have detailed the probable cause (or whatever the applicable standard is), to head off any questions about it. Instead there’s a narrative gap. Like either he hoped no one would notice, or he wanted to run his story by a lawyer first…
Crowley’s report says he identified himself verbally at the beginning (when Gates came to the door), but it’s obvious Gates didn’t hear him. Crowley says he tried to identify himself when Gates demanded it in the kitchen, but Gates wouldn’t stop hollering long enough to hear an answer over his echoes in the kitchen. All Crowley had to do was hold out a badge or the business card that most cops carry, and the acoustics wouldn’t matter. Furthermore, one of the commenters on volokh.com found a Massachusetts law that requires that requires cops to provide written ID upon request. Officer Crowley’s own report shows him in violation.
Crowley didn’t want Gates to take his card and shut up. He wanted Gates to follow him out on the porch – where he could claim to think “disturbing the peace” applied…
Gates was an a**hole (and the only racist in the story), but that’s not against the law. Crowley was an armed a**hole who violated at least one law and misused his power.
#55 “la Rana” said among other things…
“Brad=embarrassed Dunphy”
Can you really be that dense? Obviously I am not the pseudonymous Jack Dunphy. Or perhaps you intended a taunt that displays the maturity of 15 year old?
“if anything Radley characterized [Dunphy’s] opinion graciously.”
Oh that’s rich. Anyone who has any doubt can easily follow the link that Radley Balko provided and read the original by Jack Dunphy for themselves. No one has to take your word (or mine for that matter) to easily see the truth. And the truth is that Radley so baldly dowdified Dunphy’s words that he remakes Dunphy into a Snidely Whiplash cartoon villain. That is unworthy of Radley.
I like coming to Radley’s blog to read up on his latest exposes of police abuses and corruption. Radley is doing a masterful job of shining a spotlight into dark corners which are too often ignored.
On the other hand Radley as a doctrinaire libertarian has definite chip on his shoulder when it comes to conservatives and Republicans. But hey everyone is entitled to their opinion.
My problem is if Radley’s animosity starts to bleed over into his reporting as it does in this case. What he claims Jack Dunphy said, is clearly a misrepresentation. I don’t want to have to start worrying that Radley is going to (or heaven forbid already has) make the same kind of errors in his reporting.
Now for you brown-nosing Radley might be fine, but I do not care to share your residence in Radley’s colon. And for you restricting Radley’s audience to fellow brown-nosers might also be fine, but you wouldn’t be doing Radley any favors.
If Radley is to do any good with his reporting on police abuses he must maintain his credibility, if he loses that he loses any chance of effecting meaningful change. A Radley which only preaches to a tiny amen chorus might be fine for you, but I hope his reporting will reach and effect a larger audience.
I was attempting to explain why you don’t take things for granted where people are involved, because there is no such thing as a police issue crystal ball.
Apparently there’s not police-issued sense, either, or else you’d have the sense not to spin ridiculous fables every time you make a traffic stop. Gosh, this next car could be full of ninjas dressed to look exactly like lost tourists! Better keep my heater handy.
I mean once you go into every situation expecting that, contrary to appearances, it’s the most cinematic, absurdly unlikely scenario possible, where does that end? And more importantly – what assumptions do you make about the people you’re there to deal with?
Gosh, mightn’t you do something like, oh, I don’t know, be told “two men with suitcases, maybe the residents” and hear “two black men with backpacks, maybe burglers” instead?
“I mean once you go into every situation expecting that, contrary to appearances, it’s the most cinematic, absurdly unlikely scenario possible, where does that end?”
It must be oh so nice to live in a universe where everything is exactly how it seems on the surface lol. I’m sorry, but that not reality. For example, a security Guard opened a door for a kindly elderly gentleman at a museum on DC a few weeks back. I mean really, what harm could a 70-ish year old guy do right? That Guard got shot in the back and died. Was what happened to him “probable”, not at all, it wasn’t, it doesn’t happen very often even when it does happen, but in THIS universe (unlike yours chet) anything is “POSSIBLE”.
A good peace officer who wants to do a good job and knows he owes a duty because he accepts public money takes these possibilities into account.
Had there been something else going on in the gates house that night and the Officer had left after taking things at face value, the exact same folks who are criticising the guy would be jumping up and down screaming about how lazy cops are for not following through. There’s no pleasing some folks, folks who don’t like cops specifically , and that naked prejudice feeds the so-called “us vs them” mentality everyone loves to complain about in cops.
“If Radley is to do any good with his reporting on police abuses he must maintain his credibility, if he loses that he loses any chance of effecting meaningful change. A Radley which only preaches to a tiny amen chorus might be fine for you, but I hope his reporting will reach and effect a larger audience.”
Preach it, brother, amen.
It must be oh so nice to live in a universe where everything is exactly how it seems on the surface lol. I’m sorry, but that not reality. For example, a security Guard opened a door for a kindly elderly gentleman at a museum on DC a few weeks back.
That’s great. Of course, the odds of that happening to a cop are far less than the odds that it happens to a cab driver or a gas station clerk; frankly, many more cops die in the line of duty because of traffic accidents than because they misread the danger level of the situation.
And if your response to our mixed-up dangerous world is to off-load that risk onto civilians – via unnecessary escalation of force, being trigger-happy, approaching each situation like it’s a Bruce Willis movie – then frankly you’re a pretty shitty cop, because you’ve failed to understand that your job is to shoulder that risk, so we don’t have to.
Man up. Act like a cop, not like a pussy with a gun. What the hell is wrong with you?
the exact same folks who are criticising the guy would be jumping up and down screaming about how lazy cops are for not following through.
Bullshit. If the cop had treated Gates like he would have treated a white man – “oh, sure, looks like everything is in order here, sorry for the inconvinience, hope you enjoyed your trip, have a nice afternoon” – it never would have been national news. At best it would have been an anecdote in someone’s “encounter with the police” story, like the time my father-in-law, bound for a college visit with his Filipino son riding shotgun, were pulled over by the highway patrol and grilled about what relationship, if any, they had with each other.
Nobody here thinks cops need to work harder to arrest homeowners for standing in their own kitchens. The problem comes when cops assume that black people can’t own homes.