Lawrence O'Donnell writing for TIME:
If the subject does any of those [physically threatening] things, cops always write it out with precision. When they've got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing.
This was key for me. It's not just that the phrase "tumultuous behavior" is vague. It's that the lack of specifics tells us there were no specifics. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Also:
The president was right when he called the arrest stupid. It doesn't mean Crowley is stupid. It means that, in that moment, he made a stupid choice. Barack Obama has made some stupid choices on occasion too. We all do. Everyone who is defending Crowley's arrest, including his union, needs to re-read his report. There is a crime described in there. In fact, Sergeant Crowley's report is a written confession of the crime of false arrest.
I think this is a very fair take on the situation.
Couldn't disagree more. I have re-read the report multiple times and I continue to conclude that the standard of probable cause required to believe disorderly conduct had been committed was appropriately met. Trying to frame this as a first amendment issue as the editorialist is attempting to do is laughable. The professor was not arrested for voicing his disagreement with the government or any of its agents. He was arrested for behaving like an irrational, raging, fomenting lunatic in public and causing a public disturbance, in what can only be described asa display of utterly uncooperative behavior. He followed the officer out of the house while continuing to scream obscenities and epithets. He was ordered to cease and desist three or four times. "Tumultuous behavior" is not vague, it is an accurate description of Gates' conduct in this instance. I am not sure how much more specific you feel this should be. I doubt the sergeant can accurately provide a word-for-word transcript off the top of his head, so he did his best to describe the general atmosphere of the situation as it evolved.
And as to the editorialist's opinion that one can direct any kind of expression of speech at the police that one wants without consequence, that simply reflects naivete as to the realities of law enforcement at best, utter dishonesty at worst. Disorderly conduct under circumstances as described in the arrest report is commonly charged and successfully prosecuted in all 50 states all the time. Perhaps it is not "absence of evidence" but rather the fact that this particular individual is well-connected that lead to the declined prosecution.
Hi bc,
Thanks for commenting. I always find it interesting when two people can see the same thing and come to very different conclusions.
I didn't see any mention of obscenities in the police report. Am I missing something? As someone who's overlooked bugs that were staring me in the face, I admit it's entirely possible.
As for "direct[ing] any kind of expression of speech at the police that one wants" — it's true the author says Gates has a "constitutional right to say anything he felt like saying to a cop." However, he did qualify this earlier in the piece by saying, "Unless you confess to a crime or threaten to commit a crime […]." I think he would agree that inciting a crowd, for example, should also be subject to arrest. Nothing described in the police report, in the officer's own words, meets these criteria. And the author never says you can yell at a police officer without consequence. He says exactly the opposite: "We all know it happens."
It's irrelevant how often similar behavior in similar circumstances (e.g., cop approaching the person's home) is charged, when the very point is that it is charged too often. It may be relevant that it is successfully prosecuted, but I would also want to know how often it is unsuccessfully prosecuted, and why the prosecutions fail.
@bc "He was arrested for behaving like an irrational, raging, fomenting lunatic in public …"
No, he was arrested for behaving like an irrational, raging, fomenting lunatic in his home. This after he was already established as being the homeowner guilty of no wrongdoing. In one's own home, one can be as irrational as one pleases as long as one is not breaking the law.