From the "Black People Arrest Themselves" files

[Ed Anger]

It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you.

Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.

Someone has to do the manly work while you and your fellow homosexuals lick each others Buckeyes.

Now now, don't be jealous of our vast wealth of corn.

[grumbler]

It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you.

[grumbler]

You have to read the case in its entirety.  LePore begins with that recitation of the statutory language but then goes on to specifically narrow its application to exclude cases where the only act alleged is a speech act.  And in Lopiano - the case I actually cited - the suspect was in fact shouting at a police officer in a public place near at least one member of the public.  It is the same fact pattern.

Ah, no.  LaPore is the Peeping Tom case.  And in Lopiano, the issue was that the suspect was not attempting to accomplish anything by his speech other than venting.  Not necessarily so in the Gates case (ie a reasonable person could infer motives to Gates's speech).

Your dog is snoozing on this one in the mid-day sun.

My dog at least can hunt.  So far, yours is just sniffing some yokel's crotch.

[Barrister]

There's far too strong of opinions being bandied about here, with not enough hard evidence, for me to contribute much to the overall debate.  But I did want to point out that disciplinary action as a result of an unlawful arrest would be quite unusual.  It is somewhat understandable - whether an arrest is lawful or not depends on a precise legal conclusion, and it is quite possible for a well meaning officer acting without malice to engage in an unlawful arrest.  But unless it's something quite egregious, they don't face any disciplinary action over it.

If an officer is acting without malice and his interpretation of the law was reasonable, how could an arrest be "unlawful?"  Improper, perhaps, but "unlawful?"

What can I say - that's how the law is.

e.g.  Officer is told that Mr. X has an outstanding warrant, so goes and arrests Mr. X.  During the arrest Mr. X fights back and punches Officer.  It later turns out that the information told to Officer was wrong - the warrant was for someone else, not Mr. X.  It was reasonable however in those circumstances for Officer to have believed the information he was told (it came from telecoms, for example).

Nevertheless no legal authority existed to arrest Mr. X.  The arrest was unlawful, and Mr. X was justified to use force to resist that unlawful arrest.

[PDH]

Peeping Tim case?

[grumbler]

What can I say - that's how the law is.

e.g.  Officer is told that Mr. X has an outstanding warrant, so goes and arrests Mr. X.  During the arrest Mr. X fights back and punches Officer.  It later turns out that the information told to Officer was wrong - the warrant was for someone else, not Mr. X.  It was reasonable however in those circumstances for Officer to have believed the information he was told (it came from telecoms, for example).

Nevertheless no legal authority existed to arrest Mr. X.  The arrest was unlawful, and Mr. X was justified to use force to resist that unlawful arrest.

Okay, thanks.  Good example.  That clarifies a few things in my mind on some other cases I have read about, though I am not sure it applies to this case (where the officer's judgement of motive appears to be a key).

[Barrister]

Yeah, not sure it does.  Whether an arrest is unlawful or not is rarely an issue for anyone - what the accused is interested in is whether or not they are found guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether or not the officer had reasonable and probably grounds to make the arrest in the first place.  Cases of assault peace officer are one of the few times when the lawfulness of the officer's actions does matter.

[Jaron]

I hope no one has linked this..I LOVE this. Does this guy think everyone in America is stupid?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail in which he compared Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to a "banana-eating jungle monkey" has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett has apologized for the e-mail he sent about Harvard professor.

Officer Justin Barrett, 36, told a Boston television station Wednesday night that he was sorry about the e-mail, a copy of which he also sent to The Boston Globe. He repeated his apology Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I would like to take this opportunity to offer fellow police officers, soldiers and citizens my sincerest apology over the controversial e-mail I authored," Barrett said on CNN. "I am not a racist. I did not intend any racial bigotry, harm or prejudice in my words. I sincerely apologize that these words have been received as such. I truly apologize to all."

Barrett was suspended from his military duties as captain in the Army National Guard and placed on administrative leave from the Boston Police Department pending the outcome of a termination hearing. Video Watch Barrett apologize »

Barrett said he was moved to write the note because he felt The Boston Globe column about the Gates incident to which he was responding "seemed like it was biased.

"It did not show the roles and duties of a police officer and how dangerous it already is without having a debate about people getting in a police officer's face, which should never happen at all."

Asked what led him to choose to use such language, he said, "I don't know. I couldn't tell you. I have no idea."

He added, in response to a question, that he had never used such language before.
Don't Miss

In a news conference Thursday morning, Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis denounced the e-mail.

"We have a relationship to maintain with the community," he said. "Police officers certainly have First Amendment rights, but they can't cross the line. I believe this crosses the line." Video Watch Davis say Barrett will be held accountable »

Davis also said he spoke Wednesday with Gates, whom he described as "gracious and incredibly thankful that we took action."

In his fiery e-mail, which he sent to some fellow Guard members as well as the newspaper, Barrett vented about a July 22 Globe column about Gates' arrest.

The African-American scholar was arrested July 16 and accused of disorderly conduct after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his Cambridge home. The charge was later dropped, but the incident sparked a debate about racial profiling and police procedures.

President Obama stepped into the debate and drew criticism by saying the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."

Obama, who later said he spoke without knowing all the facts, tried to calm the debate, meeting Thursday with Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, for a beer at the White House.

"At this point, I am hopeful that we can all move on, and that this experience will prove an occasion for education, not recrimination," Gates said afterward in a written statement. "I know that Sergeant Crowley shares this goal."

"What you had today was two gentlemen agree to disagree on a particular issue," Crowley told reporters afterward. "I don't think we spent too much time dwelling on the past; we spent a lot of time discussing the future."

Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham, who wrote the editorial that sparked Barrett's e-mail, supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?" Video Watch Blogger Bunch: Is race discussion possible? »

In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."

Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."


He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."

According to a statement from Boston police, Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and his badge. Barrett's prior arrests and field investigations will be looked at for indications of racial bias, Davis said. The department will also delve deeper into the officers who received or viewed the e-mail.

[Martinus]

I like how he is apologizing to his "fellow police officers and soldiers" first. How about apologizing to the guy he actually insulted. What a scumbag.

[Martinus]

It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.

Let's put it this way - if the suspect in question had been Justice Breyer (who resides in Cambridge and used to teach at Harvard), would he have been charged and arrested?  What about Larry Summers?

I'd like to think race didn't play a role here, but it doesn't seem all that likely.

It would look a little odd if one of them had said "why, is it because I'm a Black man?"

Cop's reaction = 

That being said, I personally don't think being mouthy with a cop ought to be an arrestable offence. That said, a longhaired teen being cuffed for it would make exactly zero waves (I used to be a longhaired teen and I knew that very well - I was always polite to cops) - this is a class thing as much as it is a race thing; upper middle class types expect service with deference from the cops.

Whether that expectation is reasonable or not is the issue. Ideally, in law the cops should give the same amount service with deference to everyone, and treat all alike; but it is well known they do not. The concern here is that the cop did not extend the deference to which this man was "entitled" by virtue of his position, and the suspicion is that he didn't extend the proper deference because the guy was Black; what people on the other side are objecting to is the notion that a cop should meekly offer that level of deference to anyone, Black or White; in law probably they are supposed to (i.e., not arrest someone for being mouthy) no matter what race or class they are.

Yeah, this is pretty much the thing.

Which opens a broader issue (can of warms?) about what are proper form of deference/address in a supposedly classless, democratic society, where, like here, you have a conflict of a low class "formal" authority figure (the cop) and an upper class only "soft" authority figure (the professor). Since I think cops are pigs, I'm on the black dude's side here, but your mileage may vary. :p

[Martinus]

Maybe the cop could have dealt with that better - maybe Gates didn't let him.

Why is it that you always* take the cop's side?

I mean, just this week, there was the Gates thing, a lawsuit over 12-year olds being tazed and threatened with sodomy - http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/20/illinois-officers-sued-for-unprovoked-tasering/ - and a cop who was caught on video attacking a woman in a gas station unprovoked (the cop lied about the attack and said the woman attacked him, was confronted by the video, and then returned to duty eight days later) - http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/1857461-Store-video-catches-Philly-cop-confronting-woman/ - why give the cop the benefit of the doubt over the professor, again?

*Unless they praise their union.

Berkut comes from a working class family, if I am not mistaken. This comes with a de rigeur level of anti-intellectualism and penchant for a brutal authority worship.

[Martinus]

How was he not good enough for his job?

Even if he was an asshole, and didn't kiss Gates ass as much as his "eminent" position demanded, that says nothing about his ability to do his job.

The worst case scenario, as far as I can tell, is that the sergeant in question could be a bit more tactful and considerate. But shit, there are a lot of cops out there, and we aren't willing to pay to train them all that much, so what do you expect? They aren't all going to be super polite guys.

His job was to respond to a call, make sure a crime was not being committed, and secure the area. He did that. All the other bullshit that went down was completely secondary to his job.

At best, he over reacted.  That's a pretty bad failing in that job.  They do without doubt deserve more pay and training than they get.

Pretty much, yeah. It would be bad if he just yelled back abuse at him (being a professional, who should carry himself professionally even when confronted with a troublesome "customer"). But he actually abused him authority to "get back" at the guy. That's inexcusable.

It's like a lawyer deliberately losing a case for an unpleasant client - he would be out of the bar immediately.

[Martinus]

Btw, I think we can all agree that our commander in chief acted deplorably and should have stayed out of this minor squabble.

He will learn his lesson and do just that next time Russia invades Georgia. 

[Caliga]

I like how he is apologizing to his "fellow police officers and soldiers" first. How about apologizing to the guy he actually insulted. What a scumbag.

*shrug* What he says doesn't really matter now.  He completely ruined his career.

[Martinus]

I guess the cops should have allowed themselves to be killed. 

The Fates, Martinuses and Joan Robinsons of the world would prefer it.  Law enforcement and its premium placed on tactical control and authority affects their sense of fair play.

Not so keen on Fate, but I'm quite honored to be put in the same "troll brigade" as Joan Robinson/Minsky Moment.