<p>Again, I think this boils down to egos and in Skip Gates case arrogance. It would have been a different story if Gates had simply unlocked the door and walked in and the neighbor had reported seeing two Black men entering the house. But, she reported (accurately) that she saw two men BREAKING into the house. I see this as being a good neighbor, not a vicious racist. But, of course, some people will continue to view Skip’s behavior as reasonable. How crazy of him not to show the ID because he actually DID break into his own home. I think he poured fuel on the flame. This could have been a simply police check that ended without the outrage. My opinion of this guy has truly been altered. He just seems paranoid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cite the statue that says Gates had to present ID. A lot of people don’t have ID. And you certainly don’t need ID by law. You only need it if you drive, fly a plane… You are only legally required to identity yourself (say your name, date of birth, and address). You are not require to present photo ID unless you are driving, etc…</p>
<p>1253729</p>
<p>Given the circumstances, the police couldn’t leave until they knew that Gates was the owner or legal resident of the house. </p>
<p>If it HAD been a thief who had broken into the house and the police responded and thief refused to id himself other than to say he owned the house and gave the police a name (maybe even the owner’s) , a date of birth and the address as his own, and the police left satisfied - </p>
<p>and then the thief cleaned Gates out to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars -</p>
<p>could you imagine the outrage over that?</p>
<p>Look at it this way. Which criminal/robber who breaks into a home would answer the door when a police comes? I mean seriously. A criminal would simply hide or run away. I doubt that criminals would go and answer the door when a police knocks. Also Gates entered the home from the back door already and tried to get it unstuck from the inside but was unsuccessful and so he decided to try to open it from the outside. If he had the key to the back door and the front door, then wouldn’t it seem strange. Also police didn’t exactly ask for his ID first, they asked him to step outside first. Outside. People don’t have to step outside when a police is at the door unless he is serving a subpoena. And then when he showed a Harvard ID and driver’s license, the police called the Harvard police. I mean really? Is it necessary to get more police involved when he has shown a ID. HE SHOWED AN ID, you don’t need to call Harvard Police. Also I question what the police wrote. The police wrote “loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space”. I highly doubt a person’s home is a public place. That makes people wonder why he wrote “public place”. I mean it is questionable why a police would call Harvard Police after Gates showed him a Harvard ID and a driver’s license with picture. I mean really? You need to call Harvard police into this when it has a photo AND it is a Harvard ID (you can’t just randomly find a Harvard ID). </p>
<p>Lets look at this:
- He walked straight up to the door and opened it (a average burglar/criminal who breaks into houses wouldn’t)
- The police asked him to come outside (I mean one does not need to come outside to talk to a police, it is questionable why a police would ask that a person step outside when the door is open and the police can talk to the person right at his door.)
- The police called (yes called) for Harvard Police AFTER Gates presented him with a photo IDs (if he was a criminal/burglar, he wouldn’t even produce an ID and would have continued to resist. And also, the IDs have photos of him, that should make it seem quite obvious)
- The police wrote “loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space”. (This is quite flat out suspicious. Public space? They were at his door. Last time I checked, a person’s house and the area around it is definitely not public. If people’s houses were public, then people would not be putting up gates with “no trespassing” signs). </p>
<p>Cambridge and Harvard police do have pass racial incidences. They have threatened a Harvard Professor before who was also black. And many university police are like that. Take the Durham Police (the city of Duke University), they totally targeted Duke students during and before the Duke lacrosse scandal. They threatened a student that had a Siberian accent by telling the student that they would deport him even though he was a US citizen (and even then you can’t deport somebody just randomly, one must have done a serious criminal act).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again he showed a photo ID, not just any ID.</p>
<p>Also it is worthy to note that Gates disabled the alarm. I mean he disabled the alarm in the house, he had the keys to the back door, the had the keys to the front door, the had photo IDs, he has the password to the alarm and the answered the door. By the time he had opened the police came, he was on the phone to Harvard’s property section to report the faulty door. I mean he was calling Harvard. Does he really needed to be arrested when he even reported that the door was faulty?
Also just to note that the person who reported the break in was a white woman. And I wonder what she said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the said “two black men”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the cop had stayed on the porch checking the ID while Gates remained inside at the door, and a criminal had been inside with a gun pointed at Gates, the result might have been fatal for Gates and people would still claim the cop was racist, because he didn’t investigate more thoroughly.</p>
<p>She did say “two black men” just for the record.</p>
<p>cdz512 - Once Professor Gates showed his photo IDs, the police were leaving. The quote you referenced from Odyssey Tigger was in response to 1253729’s claim that Professor Gates did not need to show any ID whatsoever.</p>
<p>I can’t believe that you are using the Duke lacrosse scandal as evidence of police harassment. Do you not remember that the Duke lacrosse players were white?</p>
<p>So, should not the neighbor have not reported what she thought was a break in? And, for the record, the two men WERE black.</p>
<p>I’m surprised that 1253729 and CDZ512 don’t complain that she sexist since she had to mention that it was MEN she saw breaking in.</p>
<p>@Smoda, lol.</p>
<p>@cdz, just because someone answers the door does not mean that they are automatically freed of suspicion. Police should always make sure a suspect is innocent before running to conclusions. </p>
<p>“I doubt that criminals would go and answer the door when a police knocks.”</p>
<p>The policeman himself (Sgt. Crowley) said that he was more concerned about the potential of a robber currently at work as he was speaking with Gates. I read this from a recent CNN article. For some reason, they just omitted a section about how he was mainly concerned about his own safety as he was encountering the house (and rightly so in my opinion). Anyways, Gates was so combative when asked to go outside; any normal person would just cooperate with the police. His behavior definitely did not help prove his ownership of the house. Anyways, it is in for the safety of Gates to step outside of his own house and let police handle the situation in the case of an actual robbery. </p>
<p>“Also police didn’t exactly ask for his ID first, they asked him to step outside first. Outside. People don’t have to step outside when a police is at the door unless he is serving a subpoena.”</p>
<p>You are right, Gates is not obligated to step outside, but policeman have the right to ask people to step outside (or to let them search their house). Similarly, police have the right to ask for ID, but citizens can legally refuse to provide their ID. The charges are not based on these two specific refusals, but on his overall behavior (mouthing off) and uncooperative nature. By the way, police are allowed to do certain actions, which are typically illegal, (like searching a house without a warrant), in life threatening emergencies. In my opinion, the possibility of a robber in the house (I am not talking about Gates) is a life threatening emergency. </p>
<p>" Is it necessary to get more police involved when he has shown a ID. HE SHOWED AN ID, you don’t need to call Harvard Police. "</p>
<p>Taken from IC blog:<br>
“The officer’s mindset when is going in there is ‘why was he breaking down the door?’ Maybe there is a restraining order in place. Maybe Harvard University, who owns the house, changed the locks for some reason.” </p>
<p>"The police wrote “loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space.”</p>
<p>I agree with you on this one. I doubt Gates was loud and tumultuous, just annoying. But if someone is screaming out of their home’s door, their “loud” sound waves would carry onto a public space and the private spaces of his neighbors. I think house parties get this same charge when music is played too loud.</p>
<p>“Cambridge and Harvard police do have pass racial incidences.”</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean this is true in this specific case! First of all, one of the men in the policing unit is black! And you all should get to know Sgt. Crowley (taken from msnbc): </p>
<p>“Crowley is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling and has taught a class on the subject for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black”</p>
<p>and from the Boston Herald:</p>
<p>"The Cambridge cop prominent Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. claims is a racist gave a dying Reggie Lewis mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in a desperate bid to save the Celtics [team stats] superstar’s life 16 years ago "</p>
<p>
Yes I know they were white (I read the book written about the case). But my point was not about race. I intended point (yes it wasn’t clear) was the there were always university and city police that target university people. </p>
<p>
Yeah they were black. I don’t know how much this is going to influence, but the word “black” and “white” are more considered racist than the word Caucasian and African American. It’s often seen as less racist to call a person an African American than “black”. That’s why most of the time, newscasters say African American than "black. Sure this probably wouldn’t have changed much. I was just wondering because I’m a person who tries to avoid words that can seem to infer racism. </p>
<p>
Like I explained above, to me the word “black” is deemed more racist than the word “African American”. I highly doubt if you are going to make a important speech, you would choose the word “black” to say. And no I don’t think sexism would be a reasonable argument here. America has been more fueled on racism than sexism. My intention to bring up that condition (that she reported it) was more so to say who. I actually didn’t know if that would even be useful in an argument. That fact wouldn’t have supported my position anyways. I just wanted to release that. I was more interested in if she said the word “black” and again that is because I find the word “black” somewhat more offensive than saying “African American”.</p>
<p>@cdz, saying someone is black or white is not really racist. Yes, the formal way to say it is African American. I don’t think any black person would be offended. If anyone is, let me know, I will use African American instead. In a 9-11 call or in an online forum, I think its appropriate to say black.</p>
<p>@cdz When reporting what you believe is a crime, I don’t think your language is the same as when a person is making a speech. You also need to keep in mind that unlike you, there are many of us that have lived through the changing politically correct terms for each race. As for African Americans, I remember when negro was correct, then it became black and now African american. The person put a qualifier describing the individuals she saw committing the crime. If she happened to use the term black instead of african-american I think is is wrong of you to jump to the conclusion that she is racist. Give it 10 or 20 years and see what mistakes you make with the terms you use.</p>
<p>
And somehow a restraining order can be placed without the alert of police and Gates? I was just wondering. Because if I’m not wrong, his license says he lived in the house. If a restraining order was placed on a home, then there would be police monitoring (most of the time). Gates would be notified. He would not have the key, nor the password to the security. He actually wouldn’t have called Harvard telling them about a faulty door. Usually when there is a restraining order, the police is notified about it. And there is monitoring because it is a trespassing. Also Harvard can’t put a restraining order on Gates home (well the home that Harvard rent to him). You can’t restrain one from one’s place where they live. For it to work, Gates must not be the resident there, in other words, he can’t be legally living there (which he does legally live in). Gates is the current legal resident of the house. You can’t kick a person from their home. It’s like a apartment company placing a restraining order on a family who legally lives in one of their apartment and pays them. You can’t do that. The family must not be the legal resident there. Currently Gates is the renter of the home, and for Harvard to place a restraining order, they must legally remove Gates as the current resident and then file a order. If I’m not wrong, when you rent a real estate, it must undergo a process in which the landlord and the renter agrees that the renter is a legal resident, and only when that is clear a driver’s license can bear the address of the house that is rented. I don’t a court would allow Harvard to restrain Gates when he legally lives there under the contract. It’s also questionable why they would change a lock if Gates had the key to the back door if he was restrained or even have the keys at all. </p>
<p>
Actually you can’t search a home unless you made a lawful arrest. In that case the arrest must be accomplished by taking physical custody and transporting the person away. A temporary detention followed by a release on a written citation does not justify a search. Also for a property search to be done with out a warrant, the arrest must takes place inside a residence the officer lawfully entered (in other words, the police must be able to legally enter the house, in a usually questioning situation like Gates, the police can not), the scope of search extends to places where the arrested could reach or lunge, and also allows a peek into immediately adjoining rooms and spaces that could conceal a potential assailant (which does not include flipping through things). By legally enter the home and arrest the person and then search his or her house, it requires an arrest warrant (a robbery does not fit the case because the police is not arresting the home owner, the police is arresting an invader). However, in most property search cases that does not include a warrant, you can look but you can’t flip through things like digging into people’s files. Also you can’t take anything. Also in most cases where there is a robber inside a home, police would not go into the house, they would surround the area. Why? Because if they go inside of the house, they can risk the chance to get shot. Yes there are times when they would go into the house but usually they surround the area. And they would usually not notify the robber so when they walk outside, he/she could be arrest. In a hostage case, they would totally not go into the house (and in this situation, it is life threatening). But there are cases that they would go into the home but that would also question why they would search a home without a warrant if the robber is not a resident. I mean they didn’t make an arrest of the property owner, they are not allowed to search the property of the home owner when it is the robber that is arrested (unless it is consensual).</p>
<p>
This is quite usual, police are trained to be concerned about the safety of other, not about themselves, how can a police serve if he is mainly concerned about himself (yes I do agree that he should be thinking about his own safety but he should be mainly caring about himself). I mean the policeman is *mainly *concerned about his safety, not about others?</p>
<p>
However, you have to know that he fully knows that there was no robbery, so that’s why he felt reserve about stepping out. If I see a police come to my door for no apparent reason and knows everything is fine, I would be questionable about why the police is here. Now I mostly likely wouldn’t act like Gates and refuse. But what I’m saying is that Gates had a reason to refuse. It is because he is greatly puzzled by why a police is there and claiming that there is a burglary even though he fully knows there is not. Because of the fact that he teaches about race relationship, he had a bigger question why there was a white policeman asking him to step outside. He was puzzled. So he was actually justified to take the legal act of refusing to step outside.</p>
<p>@ waitn184,
Again the words “black” and “white” being offensive is just my personal opinion. I was expressing my thoughts on it, other people think different. I work at a camp which has campers that are predominately African American kids (5-12 year olds) who live in low income families and we do have a rule about using a the word “black” and “white” and even other words (and no I’m not an African American). But it is my views, I can understand yours. I try to not offend others. And yes I can see what you are saying that some don’t feel offended. I just try not to make others feel uncomfortable because I don’t know if “black” and “white” can offend the person I talk to. And yes I do agree that it can be acceptable to say “black” in a 911 call.</p>
<p>
As for this, I highly doubt that using African American and Caucasian can ever become a mistake. It is legally and formally called that. On college applications it says that. So I highly doubt that it will become a mistake. </p>
<p>
Yes and that was during the time where there was segregation and the period of slavery. And yes that was before we had views on racism and when it was acceptable by most to segregate and call people by the skin.</p>
<p>A very small amount of sensitivity training would reveal to any police officer who routinely is involved in asking people to do something they don’t want to do is that: (1) Most honest people get very irritated when you don’t believe them; (2) Most people might feel that a cop walking into their home and accusing them of trespass seem like a violation of privacy; (3) an African American Man might have a hightened sense of sensitity to and be offended by the thought that he had been profiled; (4) A Harvard Professor might be incensed that he was being rudely treated at his own home. Regardless of whether Gates was angry, or insulting, the job of the Officer is to diffuse a situation where he made a mistake and call it a day. “Contempt of Cop” charges were simply ego talking.</p>
<p>Crap, I closed my browser after typing a lengthy response :(. Can you teach me how to do that quote box in your next response, thanks.</p>
<p>The main problem with your argument is that you already assume that the cop knows (or should know): 1. who Gates is 2. his ownership of the house 3. the nonexistence of a robber (not Gates). Policeman have to keep in mind all the possible scenarios when investigating a reported robbery. The cop is not responsible to know anything about Gates, even if he is a , so-called, Harvard scholar. </p>
<p>“You can’t kick a person from their home.”</p>
<p>Like I said above, Crowley did not verify, yet, the ownership of Gates. Anyways, he did not force Gates to do anything! It is completely legal to ask a person to leave their house or provide identity. The charges are mainly based off of Gates’ uncalled for behavior: such as talking about Crowley’s mom.</p>
<p>“And somehow a restraining order can be placed without the alert of police and Gates?”</p>
<p>Like I said, this is about what the police knows, not what Gates knows. Gates does not have the authority to deal with robberies, the police does. I highly doubt Sgt. Crowley is responsible to memorize all 1000000 (exaggeration) restraining orders in Cambridge, nor are they required to carry around all files concerning restraining orders while addressing a robbery!! And you have to keep in mind that police cannot go through all that complex reasoning you mentioning below when addressing a situation. If policeman assess a situation like you and I are assessing this situation, they wouldn’t last very long! It is reasonable for Crowley to ask for hard evidence of Gates’ identity and ownership of the house in order to end the confrantation in a quick and simple manner. He shouldn’t just automatically assume Gates is innocent (or that their is no robber currently in the house) because the security system turned off, or because he has a key of the house (which he could have gotten after breaking in). Plus, I don’t think the policeman was there to see Gates go through his back door. </p>
<p>"and for Harvard to place a restraining order, they must legally remove Gates as the current resident and then file a order. "</p>
<p>Again, how is the policeman supposed to know if Gates is the current resident or not? (before Gates proved his ownership of the house)</p>
<p>“Actually you can’t search a home unless you made a lawful arrest.”</p>
<p>First of all, I would like to point out that this topic has nothing to do with the case, because Crowley did not enter the house illegally. I should not have brought up this topic. I think you are wrong though, a policeman can search files inside a house in complex cases: such as when a hostage is being held at gunpoint in an undisclosed location (and is said to be shot in 30 minutes or so if…) , and the information on a document within a house gives the police the information needed to save the hostage’s life; Furthermore, filing for a search warrant would take too much time.</p>
<p>“This is quite usual, police are trained to be concerned about the safety of other, not about themselves”</p>
<p>If Gates’ was not talking bad things about my mother and bothering me as I am ftrying to ensure his safety, I think I would care more about my own safety too! I think Crowley’s rank and time on the force proves that he is capable of placing himself before others.</p>
<p>“However, you have to know that he fully knows that there was no robbery”</p>
<p>Like I said many many times, it does not matter what Gates knows! It is the police’s job to respond to a robbery call, not him! Many many people get accused for things they didn’t do (like murder) and cooperate with police because they know that is the lawful and reasonable thing to do. He is not above the law, even though he is a “renowned” Harvard scholar. Just because you “have a reason to refuse” does not mean that you can verbally assault the people who put their lives on the line to make sure the community is safe.</p>
<p>Wow I closed my browser, again, while my last post was submitting! Thank God it went through. </p>
<p>@cdz, Have you noticed something interesting about how our debate has progressed? Nothing about race anymore!</p>