Cop: I Voted for Obama, But I’ll Vote for His Challenger Now
CNN reports that Cambridge police officers stand firmly behind their colleague James Crowley, who arrested Harvard Professor Henry Gates after the latter threw a hissy fit when Crowley was called to his house by a neighbor who thought somebody was trying to break into it.
Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is African American, said: “This situation right here was not a racially motivated situation. I heard one of the commentators call him a rogue cop… There is nothing rogue about him. He was doing his job.”
Another African American police officer, Kelly King, also defended her colleague before the eye of a camera. When she heard both Gates and Obama accused Sgt. Crowley of racism, she “was appalled,” she said. “I know him for more than eleven years… I know him to be a good police officer, a good man with character, and I knew these charges were bogus.”
“There has been a tremendous rush to judgment,” she continued.
“Racism has nothing to do with it.”
She also had something to say about President Obama. “It’s unfortunate. I supported him, I voted for him – I will not again. I agree that, I think that it’s admirable that he would speak on behalf of his friend, but he should have recused himself. He should’ve stepped back, and he should’ve said ‘I support my friend, but I don’t have all the facts, so I won’t weigh in yet.”
Watch the – quite powerful – video of two African American police officers criticizing President Obama for defending Professor Gates and insulting a fine police offer; a man who risks his life and limbs daily to keep his fellow citizens safe.
Republicans, of course, should thank Obama for defending Gates so passionately. This video alone gives them a whole lot of material to work with. Can you imagine the ads? A beautiful, articulate African American police officer saying: “I voted for him – I will not again.”
It does not get better than that, does it?
Obama got himself into a whole new mess of trouble by putting himself in the middle of this issue in the first place. I’m not sure what he was hoping to accomplish, but a lot of media are skeptical of what he did. http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama_joins_gates_gate
So, now that the 911 tapes have been released, it’s been revealed that the original caller did NOT mention anything about the suspects being black OR carrying backpacks, AND the caller’s lawyer said that the caller never spoke with Crowley.
Are you revising your position in light of the falsified report?
No, President Obama gets my FULL support.Arresting Dr. Gates was stupid.
What isn’t getting a full hearing at this point is that Sgt. Crowley arrested Professor Gates for his tumultuous behavior, and the charges were subsequently dropped by the Cambridge District attorney BECAUSE recent appeals court rulings in Massachusetts have established that individuals may indeed raise a tumult at an officer with foul speech, and in the presence of numerous persons in a public space and this behavior still will not meet the requirements for arrest for disturbing the peace.
The idea that the charges were dropped because of political pressure from above is only part of the story. The continued intense scrutiny of this process may subsequently reveal that Sgt. Crowley may have been briefed of the status the law re: loud public speech against an officer no longer being a prosecutable offense. Internally, either the Middlesex DA, or the Cambridge PD management is at fault for not briefing the officers on the beat, or perhaps Sgt. Crowley may have been briefed and chose to make an arrest in any case for charges he knew would subsequently be vacated. It is unknown at this point who knew what. What we do know is “contempt of cop” occurred on Ware St. at the residence of Dr. Gates.
It’s important to note that neither of these officers was even present during the initial interaction between Crowley and Gates, so they are not qualified to comment on what actually was happening at that point. No one knows, there was no independent observer, that’s a big part of the whole problem! Also interesting to note that in one report, when Lashley is asked quite specifically if Gates should have been arrested, he says he supports Crowley 100%. That’s not quite the same thing as saying Gates should have been arrested!
But the big elephant in the room is that of course these officers, regardless of color, are going to support Crowley’s apparent misguided belief in his non-right to arrest a citizen in his own home for yelling at a cop. These people want to retain their own non-right to arrest citizens solely because they are pissed off. This is NOT unlawful behavior, it is NOT “disorderly conduct” under MA law, this is not a grey area. Words alone do not constitute “disorderly conduct,” unless inciting a riot or threat (no, a threat to talk to a cop’s mama isn’t a “threat” in the context of the statute!). THIS IS THE CRITICAL ISSUE. Unfortunately, it seems the majority public are far more interested in opposing any cause taken up by the Sharpton/Jackson brigade, than they are in standing up for THEIR OWN constitutional rights.
I’m willing to see the situation in the light least favorable to Gates, that he completely lost it without provocation. Crowley appears to have much to recommend him and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on any racial motivation or provocation. Crowley has my support right up until the point when he decides to arrest someone for non-criminal conduct in their own home. At best, this was due to ignorance and he, like probably most of his colleagues, needs to be educated as to what the law that he is charged with upholding actually means and how it is correctly interpreted in context with the constitutional rights of the citizen. At worst, the arrest was retaliatory and cops need to get it through their heads that this is NOT acceptable.
Again, the problem I have with many of the comments supporting Gates is the situation. Yes, Professor Gates was in his home. BUT – and this is the significant distinction which seems to be overlooked – the officer was responding to a report of a possible crime at Professor Gates’ home. That distinction is significant. As a possible crime scene under investigation, the officer is expected to take charge, and control the investigation at the scene. The decision by Professor Gates to get rude to the officer was ill advised. Yes, one can cut him some slack – he was jet-lagged and tired and not thinking smart. But an arrest for disorderly conduct is a way for an officer to lower the volume when someone at the scene doesn’t want to do it voluntarily. The notion that you can mouth off to anyone in your home is generally correct. Generally. A crime investigation changes that dynamic, just as my right to free speech does not include the right to scream FIRE! in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire.
The lesson I am taking away from this is that a lot of people think they have absolute freedom of speech. That assumption is in error. The case law actually restricts free speech quite a bit under various circumstances. That includes criminal investigation sites. Which, for the period in question, would include Professor Gates’ home. Getting mouthy to an officer investigating a possible crime site can be viewed in some circumstances as a form of interference with the officer investigating the incident. In some jurisdictions, that is, in fact, a crime. It is also obvious that those who generally dislike academics will tend to see Professor Gates in the worst possible light. Just as the people who generally dislike the police see Sgt. Crowley in the worst possible light.
It is human nature to see ourselves and those we agree with in the best favorable light. It is a truly enlightened person who can look beyond his personal likes and dislikes for a more impartial understanding. As I said a long time ago – both men could have made different choices that could have reduced the exchange to a less confrontational one, but they didn’t. A truly wise move for both is to recognize that this is not worth making more of a fuss over, and getting on with their lives.
A couple of points:
-Yes, clearly, from a political standpoint, Pres. Obama erred. He gained little to nothing in his comment and took attention from health care. That alone was a surprising development given his consistent ability to “stay on message” during the campaign.
-The public at large seems to be doing what the two key players did, let emotion and skin color drive our reactions. I firmly believe that the sum total of their pasts counts for more than the episode itself. From all I’ve read Prof. Gates has been thoughtful regarding racial issues in America. He has not been the academic version of Rev. Al Sharpton. In the same manner, it seems that Sgt. Crowley is highly respected and trusted to teach racial issues to fellow police officers.
-Did skin color play a role? Likely AND for both Prof Gates and Sgt Crowley. Would Sgt Crowley have reacted the same way if Prof Gates was white? I don’t know. A question that seems to get missed is “would Prof. Gates reacted as vehemently if Sgt. Crowley was black?”
Unfortunately we’re built to detect “differences” and then act on them. Skin color is such an obvious difference I believe its difficult not to react, if only at a deep, subconscious level. That phenomenon goes in both directions (black to white and white to black) and in multiple directions.
Apart from color this interaction plays in so many other directions: class differences; academia vs non-academia; citizen vs. law enforcement etc