--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: > > On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:48 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > Here is what is confusing me about the Gates case. > > > > I have heard commentators say that Gates was > > "racially profiled" by the policeman who came to > > his home. Although Gates may have been profiled by > > the neighbor who made the initial call to > > police/911 that started this whole thing off, > > there certainly wasn't any racial profiling done > > on the part of the police officer that went to the > > house.
Correct. None by the person who reported seeing a break-in, either. She was asked to describe the people she saw, and she said (accurately) that they were black. That isn't even remotely "racial profiling." The "racial profiling" complaint is based on the cop (Crowley) asking Gates for his ID. But that's just routine to ask for ID from whoever you find in a house that's been reported as having been broken into. Crowley says he had already concluded Gates wasn't a burglar by the time he came in the house. The ID was a formality. What's *very* questionable to me is the subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct. There's excellent reason to believe the arrest was Crowley's payback for Gates having yelled at him and called him a racist. Although I think Gates behaved abominably, I'm not on Crowley's side in this, not because I think he's a racist but because he abused his authority. Gates's bad behavior wasn't a crime--until Crowley lured him out onto the porch. There was no need for Gates to come onto the porch. Crowley appears to have told Gates to step onto the porch in hopes that Gates would continue to yell at him--which Gates did--and by that time a crowd had gathered, so Crowley could claim Gates was "alarming" the public, which is one of the legal criteria for a disorderly conduct arrest. It looks like Crowley essentially entrapped Gates into doing something for which Crowley could arrest him. If you read the arrest report and the Mass. statute defining "disorderly conduct," you'll see how carefully and deliberately Crowley worked the language of the statute into the report. (Is Marek around? Be interesting to hear his take on all this.) <snip> > I sort of agree with shemp... I must be feeling worse > than I thought. What it definitely is, though, is a > sad comment on our times and our sense of community. > His own neighbor didn't recognize him? How sad is > that. Well, that part is definitely *not* "a sad comment on our times." The woman who made the report wasn't Gates's neighbor; she was someone who worked in the area. She had no way of knowing the person she saw lived in the house. This will, of course, be lost on Stupid Sal, but in the case of a controversial event like this one, it's always a good idea to read more than one account before forming your opinions, because it's inevitable that early reports will have inaccuracies and that more information will come out later.
