From the "Black People Arrest Themselves" files

[The Minsky Moment]

[Depending on the circumstances, causing a disturbance or obstructing a peace officer could apply.

Disturbing the peace is a public offense, it requires intent to cause disturbance to the public at large, not to a police officer.  And I hardly think shouting: "Don't you who you are messing with?" constitutes creating a criminal disturbance.

There was no obstruction because at the time the alleged statements were made, the officer had completed his investigation and was walking out the door.  Saying mean words doesn't obstruct anything.

[alfred russel]

I'd like to be on the cops side, but it is hard to figure out how. Even the best case senario for the cop seems like there shouldn't have been an arrest.

[Neil]

Hm, are you guys aware of the fact that Gates has disputed that he ever made any of those statements about racism?  The only thing he agrees that he said was that he wanted to know the officer's name and badge number, and he agreed that he got angry when the officer refused to provide that info.

Yeah, but Gates is a liar.

[Malthus]

As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.

No question you are correct.  In either case, its still an improper arrest.  But the real question is why Gates didn't get the kind of relative deference that ordinarily is given to a more mature, upper middle class, property-owner who is well-known in the community- which is the point you just made above.

What I see is a sort of collision between the unwritten and written rules.

I assume that, strictly speaking, the cops have no right to arrest someone for simply being mouthy. The fact is that they probably do that all the time - to certain people.

Thing is, they don't usually do it to eminent upper middle class or upper class types. They are "supposed", under the unwritten rules, to defer.

OTOH, under the written rules, cops should not be making those kinds of distinctions - they ought to treat everyone the same. Reality is of course that they don't.

The two opposite points of view are easy to see from this perspective.

On the one hand, the natural conclusion is that the cop wasn't treating this fellow with the deference he "deserved" under the unwritten rules because he was Black. Thus, under this POV, it seems likely the cop was racist.

On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.

The cop's problem is that, unlike those cases, he doesn't have a really valid reason for arrest - disturbing the peace sounds thin. So, not 'racism' necessarily but more like a nuisance or grudge arrest.

[Caliga]

Yeah, from what I've read it seems "grudge arrest" is a good way to describe it, again, assuming that Gates said all the things the officer claimed he did.

[Berkut]

As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.

No question you are correct.  In either case, its still an improper arrest.  But the real question is why Gates didn't get the kind of relative deference that ordinarily is given to a more mature, upper middle class, property-owner who is well-known in the community- which is the point you just made above.

What I see is a sort of collision between the unwritten and written rules.

I assume that, strictly speaking, the cops have no right to arrest someone for simply being mouthy. The fact is that they probably do that all the time - to certain people.

Thing is, they don't usually do it to eminent upper middle class or upper class types. They are "supposed", under the unwritten rules, to defer.

OTOH, under the written rules, cops should not be making those kinds of distinctions - they ought to treat everyone the same. Reality is of course that they don't.

The two opposite points of view are easy to see from this perspective.

On the one hand, the natural conclusion is that the cop wasn't treating this fellow with the deference he "deserved" under the unwritten rules because he was Black. Thus, under this POV, it seems likely the cop was racist.

On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.

The cop's problem is that, unlike those cases, he doesn't have a really valid reason for arrest - disturbing the peace sounds thin. So, not 'racism' necessarily but more like a nuisance or grudge arrest.

I think you have it pretty much.

Which goes back to my original point - if there is any racism involved, it is on the part of the guy who decided to bring up his race as the supposed reason his ass was not being kissed sufficiently to his taste. IE, the racist here is him.

Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.

[The Minsky Moment]

On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.

It isn't infinite but it is a lot more than zero.  If this the Mayor of Cambridge's house and similar words are spoken, this arrest doesn't happen.

Even under the officer's account, Gates did not swear or use profanity, he did not threaten any violence or make any inappropriate or threatening gestures, he did not brandish or throw any objects.  The actual words quoted in the police report are actually kind of remarkable if anything for their tameness.   This isn't a case of some sports star getting caught DUI or an famous actor shoving a cop.  It is very difficult to come up with some kind of sensible explanation that does not involve race that would explain why an officer of this level of seniority and experience would make an arrest like this under such weak circumstances.

[garbon]

I'd like to be on the cops side, but it is hard to figure out how. Even the best case senario for the cop seems like there shouldn't have been an arrest.

Dead to me.

[garbon]

Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.

If this is the case in a place like Cambridge, you'd think the cop would know better than to make the arrest.

[Malthus]

On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.

It isn't infinite but it is a lot more than zero.  If this the Mayor of Cambridge's house and similar words are spoken, this arrest doesn't happen.

Even under the officer's account, Gates did not swear or use profanity, he did not threaten any violence or make any inappropriate or threatening gestures, he did not brandish or throw any objects.  The actual words quoted in the police report are actually kind of remarkable if anything for their tameness.   This isn't a case of some sports star getting caught DUI or an famous actor shoving a cop.  It is very difficult to come up with some kind of sensible explanation that does not involve race that would explain why an officer of this level of seniority and experience would make an arrest like this under such weak circumstances.

Well, that's veering into some very subjective territory - many people could reasonably be more offended by being called a "racist" than being sworn at, for example. The fact that such an accusation was made clearly makes it an "explaination that involves race", but on which side of the dispute?

Clearly, unlike the DUI, there wasn't any laws being broken here. The cop was I think making a grudge arrest, which is a no-no. He did have a genuine grudge though, assuming his account was correct; though I agree that the proper and professional thing to do would have been to clench his teeth and take it out on video games later. 

[Berkut]

Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.

If this is the case in a place like Cambridge, you'd think the cop would know better than to make the arrest.

I think I already said that. He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.

[garbon]

He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.

Which is good. Be willing to get what you give.

[Berkut]

He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.

Which is good. Be willing to get what you give.

OK, Marty.

[garbon]

OK, Marty.

Unlikely, I'm not calling for anyone's death and recognize that police are a necessity.

[Berkut]

OK, Marty.

Unlikely, I'm not calling for anyone's death and recognize that police are a necessity.

You are doing the "oh, some people somewhere are mean to some other people somewhere, so it is ok for some other people to treat yet other people like shit!" thing though.

Yipee for racism, as long as it can be justified by other racism!