--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> > > Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> > > backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.
> >
> > No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
> > Ever heard of the Blue Line?
>
> [snip]
>
> You are:
>
> 1) accusing the black officer of a crime. Police
> officers are NOT allowed to lie about what happens
> during the course of their work.
(1) I didn't accuse her of a thing. (2) Don't be naive.
> 2) There were non-police citizens who ALSO witnessed
> what happened outside. We shall see whether they
> support Crowley's and the black officer's report as to
> what happened. do you have any doubt they will back
> up the black officer?
Non sequitur. What do you imagine I'm saying happened
that would have appeared to them different from what
they'd report?
<snip>
> > I'm not saying what Crowley did was itself criminal,
> > even if he did engineer the arrest as payback for having
> > been dissed. But it was an abuse of authority and worthy
> > of at least a reprimand.
>
> It's funny; you are quick to say that Gates was within
> his rights to refuse to step out on the porch when
> Crowley initially asked him to ("which he was entitled
> to do so", you wrote). But Gates was also free to
> refuse to step outside the second time Crowley asked
> him, which you claim was his engineering his arrest.
Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is
that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked
him to in the first plac.
> You have quickly backed off your claim of "entrapment"
No, I didn't back off a thing. I wasn't claiming what
you thought I was. As I explained, I was using it as a
synonym for "lured." I acknowledged you were correct
in saying it wasn't a crime, but as I've said, I wasn't
accusing Crowley of committing a crime.
> Judy, you have concluded that it is an abuse of
> authority for Crowley to have provided Gates with the
> opportunity to disturb the peace and be disruptive.
I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed
him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley
would have the legal justification to arrest him.
> But, apparently, the law disagrees with you.
As I've already said, Crowley didn't commit a crime.
There's nothing for the law to disagree with me
about.
Gates
> acted 100% of his own accord. He CHOSE to make
> disparaging remarks about Crowley's mother. He CHOSE
> to walk out of his house when he could have refused
> just as he did the first time he was asked. He CHOSE
> to make this a racial issue.
Absolutely.
> All this was Gates' doing. Crowley it seems acted
> completely appropriately...
Except for asking Gates to come outside. There was no
procedural reason for him to do so. The investigation
was complete. Crowley didn't need anything more from
Gates.
> and Gates should be thanking him for being so diligent
> in protecting the neighborhood in which he lives.
Well, yes and no. It's Crowley's *job* to investigate
a report of a burglary; he couldn't have *not* done
so. But it wouldn't have been out of place for Gates
to have expressed appreciation.
Look, I understand why Crowley was angry; but I also
understand why Gates was angry. Gates was exhausted
from a long trip and upset to find his lock had been
jimmied and that he had to break into his own house.
The combination of his distress over that and a white
cop demanding he prove he wasn't a burglar--even
though it was entirely appropriate and Crowley, as far
as we know, behaved perfectly up until he decided to
arrest Gates--given the long history of black men being
mistreated by white cops, was enough to push Gates
over the edge and lead him to behave irrationally.
That doesn't *excuse* his behavior. But it wasn't a
crime, and until Crowley lured him out onto the porch
there was zero basis for an arrest. And even then,
although the arrest was justified legally, Gates's bad
behavior wasn't a threat to public order; the arrest
wasn't justified in practical terms.
Again, Crowley *could* have just handed Gates his card,
walked out, got in his car, and driven away, leaving
Gates to do his fuming by himself. Gates might well
have still tried to cause trouble for Crowley with his
superiors; the incident might still have made the
papers. But it was the unnecessary arrest that escalated
it into a big racial uproar across the country.
I'll bet a buck that Crowley privately wishes he hadn't
made the arrest. I *hope*--but wouldn't bet--that Gates
privately wishes he'd kept his temper.
If you want to continue the discussion, I won't be able
to respond until Monday or Tuesday, because I'll be out
of town.
