Monday, July 27, 2009

No Comment

I recommend sitting down as you read the identity of the lawyer "representing" the 911 caller in the Gates case.

What's next? Crystal Mangum as a PR consultant?

93 comments:

wfr said...

The real scandal here is revealed in the last sentence of the article. No wonder we're in such sorry shape.

Debrah said...

I would bet that Wendy Murphy has been calling Whalen and offering "advice" since the story broke and the woman's name was in the news.

But Murphy is bouncing around and has landed on the side opposite the one she was on when she was propping up the false accuser Mangum.

For a hack like Murphy, any woman "in need" will do.

No doubt she'll be making the rounds on cable TV.

A Duke Dad said...

Let me add to my previous post here in another thread:

OMG ...
the Duke LAX story will NEVER fade ... and how it illuminates the Gates flap.

The woman who made the 911 call, Lucia Whalen, never mentioned the race of the two men

...according to her attorney, who is ... Wendy J. Murphy, Esq.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090727gates_case_shocker_woman_who_called_cambridge_police_says_she_never_referred_to_intruders_as_black/srvc=home&position=0

Murphy's statement is confirmed by Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/gates-mentioned-race/?test=latestnews

However ... Sgt Crowley DID speak with the 911 caller, Whalen, BEFORE he approached Gates' house. Whalen had stayed in phone contact with the 911 dispatcher. There presumably is no record of what Whalen and Crowley discussed on the street, before he went to the residence

___________________

the additions:

1) Crowley's police report of the incident states:

As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I turned and lookin in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of XX Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, i asked htat she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

____________

On the 911 call, Whalen is much less definite - cannot identify race, mentioned suitcases, but not backpacks, said she was calling because "an older woman standing here" saw the incident and asked her to call. Whalen had observed the men who forced their way in, but was uncertain if they lived there, were doing work there or if there was a crime.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/27/911_tape_reveals_caller_did_not_bring_up_race_of_gates.html

Anonymous said...

What's the big deal? Suppose she saw two white men appearing to break in and told the dispatcher. That would have been all right. Why would it be wrong to tell the dispatcher the men were black when they actually were? Since when has it become a bad thing to tell the truth?

DN

Jim in San Diego said...

In the bigger picture, the report that Ms. Whalen did not initially describe the two people with their shoulders to Gates' doors as "black men" is very good news.

This removes the last vestige of racial stereotyping from the incident.

We should now all enjoy a beer as reasonable people move on with their lives.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

To update an old legal adage, IMHO:

Whoever is represented by Wendy Murphy has a fool for an attorney.


-RD

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy? Hmmm. Perhaps Karla Holloway was unavailable (or simply too busy in her capacity as professor of law at Duke).

Bill Anderson said...

Well, it drives me to drink, and at this very moment, I am drinking. (I confess it is a very sorry glass of red plonk, something I never would serve to my friends.)

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

No justice, no peace said...

"Crowley's mistake was that he didn't arrest Gates for impersonating a scholar."

Near perfect...

Debrah said...

Please read this take on the Gates fiasco.

Such a superb illustration of how things could have turned out at the Gates abode.

And this is the one with which I am most in agreement.

Elder always cuts through the mountains of excuses and the old narratives.

And he's right about remaining cool when you are unlucky enough to be in the possible grasp of the law.

A few months ago I was stopped by a patrolman for not wearing my seat belt.

Almost instinctively, you know to play it humble and to be cool.

I had a clean driving record with never even a speeding ticket, which obviously helped the outcome.

But if I hadn't been very pleasant and cooperative, the guy would probably have been compelled to issue the ticket because of the attitude, alone.

Looking back, it would have been easy to have felt as though I had been singled out.

Why me?......as he sat gazing at the flow of cars from the grassy median?

Well.......probably because I wasn't wearing my seat belt.

If the patrolman had stopped someone else for the same reason and the person was black, the issue of race would inevitably have been used as the reason for being stopped.

It's never-ending and no matter what some---especially those who make a living churning the stereotypes---still try to tell us, "racial discrimination" simply doesn't have the acceptance and the profit margin that it once had.

It's rarely discussed how "minorities" benefit and get by with quite a lot because we've been conditioned for so long against describing reality truthfully.....if you must identify someone who is black having done something unlawful.

A decade ago I was living in a house with decks and one side of the house facing the woods had floor-to-ceiling glass.

Very nice view in the light of day, but at night and in the wee hours of the morning with the interior house lights on, YOU became the view.

It was a safe neighborhood so I never worried.

One night around 2 AM I was lounging on an Eames chair---(a la Fraser Crane!)---with my legs on the ottoman reading the papers I had not gotten to earlier.

I was dressed, but just barely. It was summertime.

As I folded one section of the paper and reached over to pick up another one, I saw a young man just standing on the deck, close to the windows...smiling in at me.

It was a taunting, creepy smile.

At first you simply freeze for a split second because of the shock.

Then I screamed and jumped up to get the phone and called 911.

By the time I returned to the room, he had fled.

Of course the cops scoped out the entire lot and onto neighboring areas, but the guy was long gone.

But here's the reason for this story.

When the police were questioning me, they needed a description of the guy.

And being the then-culturally-sensitive-semi-PC-back-in-the-90's Diva, I told them that I didn't want to discuss the race of the person.

And the female officer looked at me and said, "Debrah, we have to have a description of the person to know who we're looking for."

LOL!!!

Do you see? This is how paralyzed and trained this society has been.....for so long.

No one ever wants to discuss the myriad instances when not "stereotyping"---(merely identifying people accurately)---benefits those who want it that way.

To echo Gates...."Why? Because I'm a black man in America? !!!"

What a mindset.

No justice, no peace said...

This may be the best yet written on the Gates crisis. If we are voting on which article gets to the heart of the matter, this gets my vote.

He Said/V.I.P. Said
A Prejudometer cranked up to eleven.


"...The president of the United States may be reluctant to condemn Ayatollah Khamenei or Hugo Chávezor that guy in Honduras without examining all the nuances and footnotes, but sometimes there are outrages so heinous that even the famously nuanced must step up to the plate and speak truth to power. And thank God the leader of the free world had the guts to stand up and speak truth to municipal police sergeant James Crowley..."

Debrah said...

And speaking of goofy women who think they have game (Wendy Murphy), I was just watching a cable news show for the first time in weeks and there was a clip of the infamous now ex-Miss California, Carrie Prejean (sp?), at some event trying to sing a song.

It was so bad that I felt compelled to make this comment.

That woman is a dumba$$. A complete dumba$$.

Don't get behind a microphone if you can't sing.

The mic does for your voice what HDTV does for your face.

It only magnifies what is.

Anonymous said...

Run, Ms. Whalen! Get out of there now! No. Don't stop and ask questions, just get to safety!

********************

On liberal websites, I get to point out that it would be encouraging if, in this "teachable moment," people learned more than that they have a First Amendment right to viciously taunt stressed-out law enforcement officers who carry guns and tasers; also, that the Gates/Crowley incident could never have been "racial profiling" because the police were responding to a specific location based upon a specific tip about specific suspected criminal activity perpetrated by specific suspects.

And on other websites, I get to point out that there is a split of authority under Massachusetts law about whether Officer Crowley possibly violated Gates' civil rights. Compare, Levine v. Clement (D. Mass. 2004), with, Nolan v. Krajcik (D. Mass. 2005). Both involved citizens arrested by policemen for disorderly conduct that almost exclusively involved speech. In the Levine case, the federal judge let the plaintiff continue with a suit against the police officer. In the Nolan case, the judge granted summary judgment to the police officers. The gravamen was whether a reasonable police officer would realize he didn't have the right to arrest for only loud, profane or annoying speech.

Thus, it appears that both principals set a bad example. Now, let's play nice. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

So..... identifying the two men as "black" is racist. Surely therefore, identifying them men is sexist; and identifying them as humans is "species - ist".

Grow up America, while you still have the chance!!

Debrah said...

A surprisingly good one from Saunders.

The prof, the cop, yo mama

A Duke Dad said...

a commenter in Townhall posted this doggerel :



A Harvard professor named Gates
Did not put the blame on the fates
When his door wouldn't work,
But behaved like a jerk
And made it quite clear whom he hates.

The policeman had answered a call;
He did not know the scholar at all,'
So he asked for ID
And the scholar felt free
To abuse him in words that appall.

Gates wanted the cop to bow down
Before his unquestioned renown.
Those who serve and protect
Must pay special respect
Even when he behaved like a clown.

But the poor pompous man was confined
When he yelled as if he'd lost his mind.
He threw such a fit!
Howe'er high a man sit,
He still sits on his own fat behind.

Anonymous said...

Shameless ambulance chasing by Ms. Murphy.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend who lives in a tough neighborhood who called the police because of what was going on next door. Trying to be Oh-so kind she told the police "there are some men in athletic attire conducting a financial transaction next door". It would have been much more helpful to tell the police that "two black men wearing FUBU gear are doing a drug deal in the lot next door".
We can be so PC that we can say nothing useful at all.

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Just the mention of Wendy Murphy's name makes you bow down, doesn't it? That is power!

You have every right to be afraid of her. She's a mighty force.

Anonymous said...

I know . . . I am expected to obey the law . . . I don't have much money . . . I am not famous . . . I am not important . . . you really don't know me . . . I'm an older white male . . . but . . . well, I always wanted to be all of those other things like a well educated professor so that I could be an arrogant little prick who was pissed off at anyone especially people who were taller than I was . . . but I grew to be six feet tall and I couldn't use that as an excuse and being pissed off for no reason was too much work so I worked at being better than that in public besides I couldn't tell people why I was pissed off and being from the South I had more-or-less always said. "Yes, sir!" to the police because I was secretly a "wite racist" and didn't know it, so I said "Yes, sir!" to the black policeman as well as the white police and even the women and hispanic police officers too. There was a deep and traumatic reason why I did this. I couldn't help myself because ever since I was a little boy and my six feet two inch Grandfather said to me that it would be a good thing to say "Yes, sir!" I looked up at him and I thought to myself that I really wanted to be a horse's ass, but as a nine year old I had to really look up to my grandfather. I decided not to tell him what I really thought. He never laid a hand on me, but I have said "Yes, sir!" ever since in spite of the fact that I really want to be an arrogant smart-ass abusing working people who seem to be decent and who are trying to raise families. I hate people like that. They think that they are superior to me, and I know that they are not, and I know that they need to be put in their place and abused just for being who they are . . . whatever that is . . . . I will point them out for you by making an ass out of myself for the purose of identifying these perps. It is the only way I know how to do it. At any rate, I am getting help now, and pretty soon I can stop using sir and be just like some mean spirited little punk of a Harvard professor, and Im' not even educated. Cornel and I are working . . . yes, I'm workin' on a rap about all it now. Take care everyone.

Debrah said...

This is an interesting letter in the N&O.

His perspective is the same one KC emphasized from the start.

Gary Packwood said...

Larger Context...

Just like we saw with the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, the extremists are rolling out the Larger Context argument with respect to Professor Gates.

We are told to view the incident in its Larger Context all the way back to the time of A. Lincoln.

As a kid I tried using the Larger Context argument with my parents many times and never got any traction at all.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528594

Larger Context babble for Thee But Not For Me!
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 7/28/09 11:21 AM said...

...LOL!
...Just the mention of Wendy Murphy's name makes you bow down, doesn't it? That is power!
...You have every right to be afraid of her. She's a mighty force
::
Like most people who participate in and enjoy modern day knife fights she is indeed a mighty force.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

For my friend at 1130, can you work on paragraph breaks while you are hammering out the rap?

Anonymous said...

Gates' and Crowley's versions of events are, in my opinion, almost precisely at the same level on the BS-ometer. In fact, statistically, they are identically malodorous, since both are off-the -charts!

Gates played the fool by deliberately provoking the cop. Crowley had no business taking the bait (for that's exactly what it was), by handcuffing the homeowner just for "going 88" and obnoxiously insulting him.

Sorry, but NOT making such false arrests, is part of what cops get paid for -- to sometimes take stupid abuse from angry idiots, and walk away if no crime was committed.

Which is not to excuse or to overlook the STUPIDITY of Gates' behavior, but I feel strongly that cops have no business arresting anybody just for flunking The Attitude Test.

Of course, cops do that all the time. It's wrong, it's illegal, and it's unconstitutional. And, to quote our President (who was absolutely right), it is STUPID.

BUT, if Gates really thinks that cops do not ALSO arrest white people who fail The Attitude Test -- especially in the dumb and spectacular manner that Gates did (c'mon, perfessor..."Yo' Mama"???) -- then Gates is a plain bigot and an ignoramus.

Equally: Everybody should talk nice, but it's the cops who get paid to listen patiently to screaming idiots who are not so nice. Big apologies are wed all around.

Anonymous said...

Credit where credit is due...Ms. Murphy was completely accurate in the televised comments I saw about her client's 911 call. I am not so clear on whether Ms. Murphy was accurate in her comments about Prof. Gates who she claimed accused her client of racism. Certainly plenty of others have been making those unfounded accusations, however.

Observer

William L. Anderson said...

Well, given how lies seem to define the U.S. "justice" system these days, I guess Murphy is "a mighty force," since she lies a lot.

Anyone interested in the lies that Murphy and Scott Harshbarger were peddling -- and ended in tragedy -- can look up the Fells Acre case in Massachusetts. Dorothy Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer Prize in taking apart that case. But, then, Rabinowitz has integrity, something that is missing in the Bay State these days.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health/research/28brain.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world

The article above discusses the subtle hints that the brain perceives in detecting danger. The process includes an assessment of odd and angry behavior. Of course, the context of Cambridge is different from the streets of Baghdad, but still you may find this interesting as we discuss the appropriate discretion a police officer should have in determining when to use handcuffs or make an arrest of an angry/abusive person for disorderly conduct.

Of course the argument that Prof. Gates responded out of fear has been made, too. I am not sure he has made that argument, but others have.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Blogger Nicholas Stix (who wrote several articles about the Duke Hoax) writes, "If you think you see two black males committing a crime, don't call 911." (http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com)

DN

Anonymous said...

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/why-henry-louis-gates-should-sue/

The NYT ethicist, Mr. Cohen, recommends that Prof. Gates sue for pretty much the same reasons we believed the LAX players should sue. See what you think...

Observer

A Duke Dad said...

To 6:48 Observer:

Randy Cohen's "Ethicist" article is NOTHING like the LAX Hoax case.

There is NO QUESTION that Gates mouthed off to the cop. Whether that meets the criteria of a reasonable collar for disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor) is for the Bay State courts to decide. Clearly, Gates WAS going ballistic ... the question was, does it meet the level of infraction of the law.

But, we'll never know, as the charges were dropped.

In the LAX case, the 3 guys were pronounced INNOCENT by the NC State Attorney General, because the Hoax event NEVER HAPPENED.

Personally, I find Randy Cohen's column to be very misguided. The 'guilt' of Crowley is assumed, and the question is whether Gates is obligated to sue.

I am sure that the esteemed Professor Skippy Gates will dine out on this incident for decades to come. Books, speeches, films, articles will flow from this piddling event.

Anonymous said...

To Anon@3:48

Exactly.

Although I disagree with our President on most issues, I think he was right that the officer acted stupidly.

Gates behaved poorly (albeit with mitigating factors: i) just returned from China; ii) was pi$$ed/frustrated with his trouble getting in his house; and iii) had no way to know the officer was responding to a call.)

But the bottom line is that he was in his own home behaving badly, and not hurting anybody. At that point, Crowley should have walked away.

I know Crowley was investigating a reported break-in, and that police work can be dangerous. But at the time of the arrest, it had nothing to do with not stepping outside when requested or with failing to produce an ID right away.

Gates was arrested for being obnoxious in his own home, and that is not right.

IMHO

-RD

Anonymous said...

Henry Gates at his finest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekRZJof3Hq8

Anonymous said...

I have previously analogized AA Studies professors to a national manufacturers association for anger. One particular aspect that I noted was the number of Duke professors who were willing, even eager, to dismiss the idea of a post-racial country with the election of Barack Obama -- the most significant "racial event" since Brown v. Board of Education. So, I did a survey of professors to determine if that pessimistic sentiment was widespread. My data was surprising.

I googled "post-racial," "Obama" and "professor" and came up with 18 professors who had addressed the issue in one forum or another. There are surely others, but I ran out of time and patience. Some noticeable trends:

1. None of the 18 professors performed any form of scientific research or polling to support their arguments.

2. Two of the 18 professors cited one poll conducted by some other entity.

3. All of the professors saw the election of President Obama as no harbinger of a post-racial America in anything approximating the near future. In fact, some of the writers felt that the election of Obama would worsen race relations.

4. Obviously, none of the authors actually gave an Obama Presidency enough time to sink into the national psyche before rushing to judgment; in fact, some reached their conclusions before Obama's inauguration -- or even before the election!

4. For most of the professors, it seems that the goalposts have changed. Their argument, distilled, is that until African-Americans have a proportionate share of everything from housing to professional jobs, there must be racism involved.

5. Not one of the 18 professors mentioned the problems of crime, drug use, single-family homes or elementary education as possible reasons for disparities in housing, university education, arrests, jobs, etc.

6. There was no dissent. Not a single professor chose to see the landmark election of an African-American president as likely to improve race relations in the near future. This was strange to me as we are not dealing with mathematics or science, but even in those disciplines, you frequently see professors arguing over proofs and conclusions. More to come. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Here is what some of the professors had to say about a post-racial America:


Vanderbilt Professor Houston Baker, “The surreal arrest of Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates, Jr. in Cambridge, MA, this week highlights as well as any bizarre event might that we are not citizens of a ‘post-racial’ America.... Ironically, no black public intellectual in the US has been more complicit in publicizing the myth of “post racialism” as an American reality than Professor Gates.” (I will return to Baker's article later).

Duke University Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, “Rather than hope, his election may prolong hopelessness and reduce the space for open racial contestation.” Bonilla-Silva should win a special award for rushing to judge America more than 4 months before Obama even won election.

SUNY Professor Ali A. Mazrui, “Is the United States destined to become the final resting place of ethno-racial stratifications? Is there perceptible evidence for the proposition that the end of racial history is on the horizon – and its final culmination will occur in the USA, led by the struggle of African Americans? The United States is still one of the most racist societies in the world.” At least Professor Mazrui acknowledged that the United States might -- just might -- achieve post-racial status “before the end of the twenty-first century.”

McMaster University Professor Henry Giroux, “While ‘post-racial’ may mean less overt racism, the idea that we have moved into a post-racial period in American history is not merely premature - it is an act of willful denial and ignorance.”

Georgetown University Associate Dean Christopher J. Metzler, “Does the single act of electing President Obama thrust America from a ‘racial America’ to a ‘post-racial America‘? There are at least three reasons why this is a problematic conclusion.”

And here are articles from Princeton University Associate Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Harvard University Professor Lawrence Bobo, Emory University Assistant Professor Andra Gillespie, Duke University Professor Paula McClain, Princeton University Professor Cornell West, University of Wisconsin Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings, Stanford University Professor Richard Ford, UCSF Associate Professor Howard Pinderhughes, Duke University Panel (including visiting Professor Tim Tyson, Dean Lee Baker, Associate Professor Kerry Haynie, etc.), Princeton University Professor Eddie Glaude, and University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers M. Smith. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

The most surprising outcome derived from the survey was the number of people who were quick to use the Gates/Crowley incident to "prove" that America was not “post-racial.” As stated above, Houston Baker described Professor Gates as being on the vanguard of "post-racial" debunkers.

However, a review of Professor Gates' writings seems to prove the exact opposite. For example, there was an op-ed in the New York Times in which he pleaded for the end of anti-Semitism. See “Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars.”

In more recent writings, he has shown a deep and even tender understanding of Abraham Lincoln, a love of genealogy, a desire to do research and use scientific methodologies, and his major piece about Barack Obama, “A Sacred Effort,” deals with Obama's inaugural address. In it, Professor Gates does not pitch job security or negativism. He wrote:

“For me, frankly, seeing a black man pledge ‘to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend’ our Constitution of the United States in which our ancestors were defined as three-fifths of a man was one of the most profoundly moving moments in my life, testifying as it did to how far we—as a people, as a nation—had come since that dreadful compromise was hammered out at our expense in the summer of 1787.”

You cannot read this article without being moved. I see the "Pabst Summit" making gains and not consolidating losses. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

Duke keeps pushing how great everything is.


Princeton Review: Duke a happy campus

By Neil Offen : The Herald-Sun
Jul 29, 2009

DURHAM -- Students at Duke University are pretty happy. Not the happiest, mind you -- that would be the students at Brown University -- but generally content.

At least that's according to the new rankings by the Princeton Review. The publication surveyed 122,000 college students for its 2010 review book and put together rankings in 62 different categories, including how happy students are.

Duke ranked 19th on the happiness meter -- out of 371 schools, which isn't too bad, said Neil Patel, a high school student from Arlington, Va.., who was touring the Duke campus Tuesday with his parents.

"I think they seem pretty happy," said Patel, who plans to apply for admission to the university. "Everybody we've talked to has been very friendly and seems really content to be here. They smile a lot."

Duke made it into the top 20 rankings in a number of other areas, including Best College Library (#4); Best College Newspaper (#9), More to Do on Campus (#17) and Jock Schools (#18).

The university also, perhaps surprisingly, ranked highly in two areas that might not have been expected -- Students Pack the Stadiums, where it came in at # 7, and Town-Gown Relations are Strained, where it also ranked No. 7. The two categories, however, are somewhat misleading.

Students Pack the Stadiums actually refers to the popularity of intercollegiate sports on campus, and doesn't make any reference at all to whether Wallace Wade football stadium gets filled up on Saturdays in the fall.

And Town-Gown Relations are Strained actually asks the question, "Do students get along well with members of the local community?" and Duke -- which has made a concerted effort over recent years to reach out to the surrounding community -- seems to see that effort paying off.

UNC Chapel Hill made it into the rankings in two categories, coming in first nationally in Best College Newspaper and placing fifth in the listing for Jock Schools.

No school in the state of North Carolina made it into the top 20 listings of party schools. Penn State University came in first in that well-publicized ranking.

Debrah said...

John McCann loves to talk about this issue, but he won't touch the "Puffy T" Tyson topic.

Gotta keep the career "activists" happy.
***********************


Gates arrest rekindles debate about profiling

BY JOHN MCCANN : The Herald-Sun
Jul 29, 2009

DURHAM -- The mostly black shoppers at Food Lion down from N.C. Central University where white Durham Police Investigator Clark Green patrols aren't giving him any strange looks as far as he can tell, the officer said.

"They know me so good down there," Green explained

The recent arrest of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates by white Cambridge Police Department Sgt. James Crowley has rekindled a national debate about racial profiling. President Obama -- expected in the Triangle today to pitch his plan for a health care overhaul -- got caught up in the conversation by saying the situation was handled "stupidly," a sentiment from which he's backed away.

Gates was arrested at his Cambridge, Mass., home for disorderly conduct after a neighbor called the police to report a break-in there. The professor was having difficulty getting inside his house and had to force his way in. Crowley said Gates got mad when he told him he was there to investigate a break-in. Gates said Crowley was uncooperative when he asked the officer to show his identification.

The disorderly-conduct charge against Gates has been dropped.

Here in Durham, Green figures both Gates and Crowley share some blame in how the whole situation went down.

But when a police officer goes out to investigate a particular scene such as a break-in, he or she can't afford to let down his or her guard and risk getting bamboozled by bad guys, Green explained. At the same time, an officer needs to be sensitive to the people involved -- it's a fine line, he suggested.

Most times, though, once an officer explains to those involved what's going on, folks are pretty understanding, Green said.

Durham clinical psychologist Jennifer Rounds-Bryant considers the research out there on how police officers treat people and comes down on the side of Gates. In her book "It Takes A Village To Raise A Criminal! 5 Ugly Facts About Institutionalized Human Behavior" Rounds-Bryant makes the point that police officers have discretion to arrest folks or issue warnings to them, and the numbers she dug up demonstrate that cops tend to use that power harshly against black males in particular.

As it relates to Gates' arrest, the fact that Crowley is an expert on racial profiling and apparently cognizant of the ramifications of such treatment should have been all the more reason for him to work toward quelling the situation before it escalated into what has become a national talking point, said Rounds-Bryant.

The psychologist also raised the issue of gender in the arrest of Gates.

Generally speaking, men and woman would have responded differently to what played out on the professor's front porch.

"As a woman, I would have felt protected. But as a man, I might have been annoyed," Rounds-Bryant said.

Debrah said...

"The Thug" weighs in.

I'd like to explain to him....very slowly....that health care is an issue for everyone.

And that some of us actually have to pay for it, ourselves.

Not walk to some clinic and then have no worries about the price.

And let no one be fooled...the care that people get at those clinics is often better and more comprehensive than going to a private physician.
*****************

Mark Anthony Neal: Crisis for survival shifts from violence to health care

Guest columnist
The Herald-Sun
Jul 28, 2009

A generation ago, when crack cocaine was the scourge of black communities and hip-hop still wavered between decrying its impact and singing hosannas to the underground economy it enabled, one of the common narratives about black life regarded the mortality rates of young black men.

Given the seeming randomness of crime and the level of violence in many of our communities, many of us who came of age in the post-Civil Rights era lived with the expectation that we might not make it to the age of 25. At the time, black male mortality was treated as a national crisis, deserving of national conferences, prayer vigils and the creation of "boys only" charter schools.

Some of us did, indeed, survive, and a term like "40 is the new 30" has become an anthem for a generation that faces middle age with vigor. But the highly publicized death of Michael Jackson at age 50, as well as the deaths in recent years of prominent 50-somethings like comedian Bernie Mac, singer Luther Vandross, actress Lynne Thigpen and dancer Gregory Hines suggest that, despite optimism about the quality of life in middle age, the age of 50 might signal an invisible health crisis in the black community.

~snip~

All this stress might be indexed as the cost of being black in American society, which is what Morehouse College researcher Sharon Davis suggested nearly a decade ago in a study linking racism -- and its myriad of manifestations -- to stress and high rates of hypertension among black Americans.

With wage labor at a premium for the black unemployed and underemployed, and productivity in a competitive workplace as a major concern for black professionals, the little tics and annoying aches and pains that could signal more dramatic health concerns often get ignored in favor of staying on the grind. This is particularly the case for black men whose masculinity is tied to "working through the pain" and black women, who more often than not are more concerned about the welfare of others as opposed to their own health issues.

Of course there is also the issue of those who don't have access to quality health care and when they do venture to the local clinic, find that they are underserved and misdiagnosed.

In a society that is overmedicated -- often for depression and various anxiety disorders -- many black Americans go untreated for ailments that would be addressed with better preventative health care. The bottom line is that black Americans suffer disproportionately from heart disease, hypertension, prostate cancer, diabetes and a range of other treatable afflictions.

With President Obama pushing forward an ambitious plan for health care, black communities need to focus our health issues with the same passion and sense of urgency that we have long treated the crisis of black men.

Affordable health care doesn't matter if no one is going to the doctor.

Mark Anthony Neal is a professor of African African American Studies at Duke University. This article originally appeared in The Grio.

Debrah said...

This short video of Gates being interviewed by Gayle King is a perfect illustration of the kind of person he is.

Listen as he gives unsolicited details about where he dined and the whole nauseating way he has of making everything a big deal and about him.

This is a little country guy who used to be called "Skippy".

I used to think he was a decent professor who was serious about his work before he became such an open hustler.

He still talks about his one year spent at Duke in very disparaging ways.

Gates can be given a load of credit for Nan Keohane's aggressive desire to expand the race/class/gender curricula at Duke.

Actually, I consider Gates "the Daddy"---as opposed to "Yo Mama"---of what would become the egregious Gang of 88.

Anonymous said...

Re: 3:28 PM


Yes, sir. Thank you. I thought that at the time too, but . . . I will do better.

A Duke Dad said...

Factual issues:

1) The 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, was asked the race of the two suspicious men. Whalen was very unsure, said possibly one was hispanic. This is clear in the tape of the 911 call.

Crowley's report, which was on the web days before the tapes were released, states when he arrived at the scene, he first spoke with Whalen, before approaching the house. Whalen told Crowley she had seen "two black men with backpacks on the porch" ... "one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry".

What caused Whalen to change her story. Does she stand behind the "two black men forcing the door".

2) Gates stated in theroot.com, his website, that he could not have shouted at Crowley, because he had a bronchial infection, and had a doctor's note to prove it.

The tapes of Crowley's radio transmissions have shouting in the background.

Is Gates lying ?
Is the shouter Gates?

3) Given that both the 911 call and Whalen's description to Crowley both mentioned two men ... did Crowley have ANY choice, but to act cautiously until it was clear that he was not in danger of being ambushed by the second man.

4) Does Gates' tirade appear to be a canned "you are treating me like this because I am 'A Black Man in America' " routine. A get-out-of-jail card.

The other officers, including a Black and an Hispanic, all support Crowley and his decision to book Gates.
Has anyone interviewed the civilian witnesses ?

5) Were the cuffs slapped on Gates because he had interfered with the investigation by not cooperating (showing his ID when asked, screaming, not stepping outside of the house). That Crowley was just giving him a hard time in retaliation by hauling his ass down to the station.

Do the Cambridge Police routinely book people who interfere with investigations and become loud and attract a crowd ? Especially when they are baiting the cop.

6) Is this incident anything more than a pissing contest that became a media event.

7) Is this event really important, other than being a media happening ? Was Gates generating publicity ? Will he dine out for the next few decades on this story... and write books, give lectures on it?
Was Crowley 'not letting him get away with his big mouth'?

Given the huge amount of injustice that routinely occurs, is this really a story of any merit.

Anonymous said...

Found at FIRE's website,

http://www.thefire.org/


Victory for Freedom of Conscience at Grand Valley State University: Music Department Axes Political Litmus Test


The new flute player needed a "demonstrated commitment to the principles of diversity" and would be required to play in the faculty ensemble 'The Groupthink Quintet'

Music Department motto?: If it don't got that diversity, it don't mean a thing.

Music used to be a path to Higher Ground with power to sooth the savage breast.

Makes me want to sing low.

Anonymous said...

Gregory - All those professors you listed need publications. Letters to the editor count. For them anyway. Not for the rest of us.

Debrah said...

I know, I know......no one is going to believe this, but what Murphy said about her client Ms. Whalen in this report is totally true:
******************

Whalen's attorney, Wendy Murphy, said the three men - Gates, Crowley and Obama - all overreacted, while Whalen kept her cool.

"The three highly trained guys who reacted badly are getting together for a beer," Murphy said. "The one person whose actions have been exemplary will be at work tomorrow in Cambridge. I don't know - maybe it's a guy thing. She doesn't like beer anyway."

**********************

Anonymous said...

Duke Dad - Re 911 Caller

It is possible that the 911 caller knew more about (had seem more of) the two men by the time Officer Crowley arrived.

It is also possible that the 911 caller, based on her conversation with the 911 operator - who twice asked the race of the men, believed that the race of the men was important to law enforcement. Therefore, when the Officer arrived she told him what she then knew.

If this is the case, then both the 911 caller and the Officer were telling the truth and there is no reason to believe that 911 caller bore any racist intent.

Just guessing, but for now I will give them both the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous said...

Debrah said the following at 9:40 am:

Listen as he gives unsolicited details about where he dined and the whole nauseating way he has of making everything a big deal and about him.

Um, seriously? You are criticizing someone for talking about himself to much? Have you ever read anything that you've written?

Self-awareness is a wonderful thing. --ss

Anonymous said...

Duke Dad,

Completely agree on the differences between Mr. Gates situation and the Duke Lax situation. The part of Randy Cohen's article I found interesting was his argument that Mr. Gates should sue for the benefit of society generally. I do believe this is why it was important for the Duke LAX kids to sue, but I believe Mr. Gates was wholly out of line in his behavior and should be very embarrassed about his tirade. The less said about this in a court of law (or anywhere else), the better for him.

And, no, this incident does not deserve the attention it's getting, but there was/is no turning back post the "stupidly" comment. We can just hope that this turns into something better and more meaningful than what it is now...a tall order. But maybe there will be some heightened sense of responsibility when people throw around the accusation of racism.

As for Mr. Crowley's decision to arrest rather than leave the scene...it is my understanding that he was trying to leave the scene when he told Mr. Gates something to the effect that he was going to the porch if Mr. Gates wanted to talk with him further...and Mr. Gates responded with something to the effect he would talk to Mr. Crowley's mama on the front porch. Too bad Mr. Crowley did not burst out laughing at this point, but these words are fighting words to the ears of many. I believe Mr. Gates was warned several times about his "tumultuous behavior" and the possibility of arrest if he did not desist. Had the man simply remained in the house and hushed, there would have been no arrest. I can see how Mr. Crowley may have interpreted Mr. Gates behavior to be threatening, and I have limited sympathy for Mr. Gates, but I am not clear how much abuse officers are expected to tolerate when they are in a home or on a porch, etc.

Having said that, I do not consider Mr. Gates an 88er. I think his writing is too moderate for that characterization.

Observer

No justice, no peace said...

I just heard a replay of a Larry King interview with Colin Powell regarding the Gates crisis.

King asked if Powell had ever been profiled.

Amazingly, the point was lost on both of them that Powell was profiled to be a guest on the King program. Were he not black he never would have been asked to be on the show.

Too damned funny. I love our post-racial America.

Vincent "Ed" Clark said...

KC,

I am really surprised at your post. It seems gratuitous and just a backhanded slap at Crystal for no good reason. She has nothing to do with this case. If you don’t like Wendy Murphy, that is fine. You have never and will never hear Crystal or I make snide remarks about anyone.

I guess that is beside the point. As we have discussed in private emails in the past, I don’t generally like to participate in open blog debates about the case. So, I had to think long and hard before I sat down to write this.

From the beginning, I have said that I was involved in the case because I thought there was something much deeper the Duke case and others like it represent. Now, the Gates case comes along and it represents (to some people) more than just a guy getting arrested.

Whether it is Jena 6, Duke or Gates, people on the fringes are always shrill and tone deaf. Some people have accused you of being that way. I imagine you would say you did your research and you have only reported what you found. I can only take your word for that.

What I do ask is you don’t lower yourself to indulge in petty name calling and picking like some people on the blogs do. You haven’t done that thus far. When you write your posts, they are detailed and seem to be well researched. Of course, I think a lot of it is an attempt to take the place of the work that Bork was hired to do; however, it is just what I think.

I am much more interested in your review of the legal aspects of the case, the dissection of the briefs and such. The Gang of 88 stuff and the tone of this post don’t become you.

We will never agree about much as it relate to Duke. I do think we agree about one thing. There is no reason to be mean-spirited and vindictive. With all that has been said about me and Crystal, I can guarantee we would never stoop low enough to name call.

Anonymous said...

To Debrah:

I read the linked piece, and I have no doubt that Ms. Whalen was disheartened with how certain elements of the blogosphere treated her -- especially that area of the inner tubes that chose to rush to judgment with a label of "racist." Her story also seems to fit in well with both Gates' and Crowley's accounts.

I see what Wendy Murphy has said to be factually true: Obama, Crowley and Gates are getting together for a beer without Whalen. On the other hand, it was just another cheap shot based on faulty logic so that Murphy could try to inject another narrative into the conversation.

Murphy's mind was abuzz with ways in which she could stay in the news and inject a misplaced feminist narrative into an already narrative-laden story. She has become the East Coast Gloria Allred, just with a simpler brain and nastier mouth.

The faulty logic involved is that Murphy sees meeting with the President in this instance as some prize when it is supposed to be a way for "cooler heads to prevail." Murphy is suggesting that her client must not have had a "cool head." That's why Ms. Whalen should run away from Murphy -- Murphy's client means less to her than the narrative. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Another aspect of Wendy Murphy's commentary: She hinted at anti-female sentiment from others based on no good evidence. Wasn't her client's problem the fact that people hinted at anti-black sentiment based on no good evidence? I guess it could be seen as just a bad joke, but I'm ultra-suspicious of Murphy. She has earned no benefit of the doubt. MOO! Gregory

KC Johnson said...

To E.C.:

This is, of course, a blog about the lacrosse case. So in seeking a figure for the comparison, the choice was going to be someone from the case.

The two people who lied with the greatest effect during the case were Ms. Mangum and Mike Nifong; since Ms. Mangum told the original lie, the comparison to her seemed most apt.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/pepdesc.cfm?id=2385

Even though I believe Mr. Gates is mostly in the wrong in the incident with Mr. Crowley, I very much have appreciated Mr. Gates singlehanded rehabilitation of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Restoration of this important book to respectable reading lists really required the support of an African American scholar at the height of American academe, and I think we all owe Mr. Gates our thanks for taking on this task.

Observer

PS I can't stand Wendy Murphy either, of course, but I do see the humor in her statement about Mrs. Whalen, the President, the Officer, and the Professor. Frankly, Mrs. Whalen really deserves a pat on the back (I hope the men can find a way to acknowledge that...otherwise we may have a lot of people unwilling to make 911 calls until they are completely certain about the facts). Even the 911 operator was not very pleasant to Mrs. Whalen as she completely and carefully described what she saw. So, I'll say it here: three cheers for Lucia
Whalen!!!

Debrah said...

"Self-awareness is a wonderful thing."

Yes...yes, it is!

But you see, I'm the Diva....and he's not.

The Diva is also not pretending to be a very, very serious scholar who likes to scream and rant at the law.

Details.

Debrah said...

"....I can guarantee we would never stoop low enough to name call.


It's understandable that someone like Ms. Mangum would not choose to waste her time just name-calling.

I mean, compared to falsely accusing three men of gang rape, mere name-calling doesn't create quite the same impact, does it?

Anonymous said...

Vincent "Ed" Clark said... "With all that has been said about me and Crystal, I can guarantee we would never stoop low enough to name call." Two questions: How is "PR consultant" name-calling? How is "rapist" not name-calling? By the way, your ... uh ... "client" disgusts me and has done unspeakable damage to Durham, Duke's reputation, NCCU's reputation, true rape victims, race relations and honest prostitutes everywhere.

All is not lost though. I'm sure you can join forces with Zimmerman, John in Carolina and the bat cave. They're always looking for someone willing to make laughably frivolous arguments. MOO! Gregory

A Duke Dad said...

Re: KC's 9:59 -

Vincented is telling us that Crystal's precious lies are being demeaned, when used as a cultural icon ... much like the verb "Nifonged".

One should listen to Vincented, or else he will make accusations that "some" see Cannibalism, Witchcraft and a Tendency to Overtime Parking because of a lack of empathy with Vincented's world view.

A Duke Dad said...

To E.C. :

If your post was intended as a satire on logical debate, then certainly you have succeeded: Non Sequiturs, Hypothesis Contrary To Fact, Fallacy Of Extension, etc.

I was involved in the case because I thought there was something much deeper the Duke case and others like it represent.

Whether it is Jena 6, Duke or Gates, people on the fringes are always shrill and tone deaf.

With all that has been said about me and Crystal, I can guarantee we would never stoop low enough to name call.

You neglected to identify yourself to the audience that has not had the wonderful fortune of recognizing your name.

You are the coauthor of the widely read book, "Last Dance for Grace" ... no no... not Grace Kelly .... Crystal Precious Mangum, your coauthor.

FYI, no, I have never hear[d] Crystal ... make snide remarks about anyone.

I never heard her say anything.
But, I have seen Mangum's sworn statements, testimony, accusations result in making life hell for people who did absolutely nothing against her.

Anonymous said...

Wow- talk about stunning-
"Ed" tries to appropriate the moral high ground with the statement:

"With all that has been said about me and Crystal, I can guarantee we would never stoop low enough to name call."

Doesn't falsely accusing people of rape qualify as name calling?

sheesh

RL alum '75

Bill Anderson said...

The blogger Will Grigg has made some good points regarding the Gates case and police conduct in general. Police today generally are trained to see all of us as the "enemy," and we get some bad results.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w104.html

Anonymous said...

Gates:
"Wolf! Woolf! Woooooolffff!"

Next time he needs a policeman, I'd suggest he call someone from the New Black Panther Party. Or some of the discredited cops from the Sitty of Duhh.

No justice, no peace said...

Aesop's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" fable is rooted in Euro-centric, western culture.

One must assume that it was rejected as racist by Gates.

However the moral transcends the meta-narrative of race.

"Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth."

Anonymous said...

To "Ed" at 6:12 PM

The State of North Carolina through its Attorney General has reviewed the utterings of your "client", Crystal Gail Mangum, and determined that she lied(ie: told falsehoods) about herself and others. She said specific people raped and assulted her. This cannot be simply dismissed as a disagreement of facts between you and Professor Johnson.

You and your "client" have lied repeatedly and, publicly, called other people names. Now, all of a sudden, you and CGM have developed thin skin.

CGM has delivered children who will go through life, as she does, without knowing the name of the father of the children. She was scientifically found to be promiscuous sexually( the semen/DNA of multiple males found in and on her person), and she publishes lies and name calling in her less than widely purchased book.

Put a sock in it.

Gary Packwood said...

Vincent "Ed" Clark 7/29/09 6:12 PM said...

...
...What I do ask is you don't lower yourself to indulge in petty name calling and picking like some people on the blogs do.
...
::
Fair enough if you will give us just a little more time to move up the learning curve into the rarified air of 'larger context' where so many reside.

Most of us only know to deal with the facts and the truth.

Larger Context thinking requires a whole new vocabulary devoid of nouns.

Some of us are just slow. Me included.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

To Observer:

You are wise to divorce Ms. Whalen from Wendy Murphy. Whalen did the right thing the right way for the right reasons with unfortunate consequences not of her making. In the Duke case, Wendy Murphy did the wrong thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons with unfortunate consequences partly of her making. And you are also wise in advising that nothing should "chill" the desire of people to be good citizens by calling 911. We're all on the honor system here!

*********************

It is fun to see how many people independently came to the same conclusion that Mr. Clark's post was full of hypocrisy and irony. (Hypocrony?) I'm waiting to see how he can rationalize calling someone (irony #1) a name caller for being a PR consultant, when that person describes himself on the internet in the following way:

"Vincent Clark brings more than 20 years of comprehensive experience in the field of IT CONSULTING, change management, customer service CONSULTING, quality assurance, marketing and PUBLIC RELATIONS." (irony #2). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

http://www.theroot.com/views/caller-gates-case-hurt-racial-dispute

An article from The Root about the 911 caller. The author challenges Mr. Gates for his ugly remarks about the caller on the scene...and questions what on earth did Mr. Crowley did that made Mr. Gates so angry.

Christopher Hitchens has an article in Slate about the Gates/Crowley episode emphasizing the Man's Castle/Bill of Rights aspect of this and telling of his own run ins with police officers...but so far no one actually seems able or willing to offer a thorough (or semi-thorough) legal analysis of the situation...which probably means it's not so very clear.

Observer

Vincent "Ed" Clark said...

KC,

If Wendy Murphy is representing the 911 caller, what does that say about the caller?

Remember who was on the OJ defense team in the murder trial. Some of those very people are very important in exoneration cases all around the country and in North Carolina. Lawyers, public relations people and agents do what they do.

By the way, I wasn’t trying to be funny. I was just trying to be civil. I was asking legitimately for folks to be polite. That’s all.

Oh well, I guess it doesn’t matter.

Debrah said...

An oldie, but goodie!

Debrah said...

Sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due.

I've just finished laughing so hard that tears are flowing down my face and I'm losing my breath.

Nothing....I mean nothing.....tells the story like that little animation at the end of the comment.

Scroll down, but make sure that you are not eating or drinking anything around your computer when you do.

Ginny said...

I'd love to hear Debrah's comments (sorry KC) on whether women can trust men who drink light beer or even more horrifying, non alcoholic "beer". In which circle of hell did Dante put these fools?

Debrah said...

Stuart's Sotomayor, Gates, and Race at National Journal

Anonymous said...

An interesting comment by Ruben Navarrette, Jr., at CNN.com, in discussing the reaction from academia.

"Catch that? The black elites who depicted Gates as Huey Newton in a tweed coat long ago stopped seeing themselves as part of the community they claim to represent to the rest of academia. Police might roust other African-Americans. But Skip and his posse spend their summers on Martha's Vineyard. They're better than ordinary black folks, and they expect to be treated as such."

The full article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/31/navarrette.gates.crowley/index.html

Anonymous said...

Is Harvard a state school?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Deborah, for the animated cartoon laugh and the article from the clear head of Stuart Taylor.

Love the fact that Henry Louis Gates is the editor-in-chief of The Root, a fact Mr. Taylor notes and I neglected to mention in my comment. BTW the article I cited above is pretty critical of Mr. Gates.

At this point I am surprised at the lack of constitutional legal analysis regarding the Gates/Crowley scene, so without doing the work I am going to make an assertion and hope that someone with a firmer and more recent grounding in constitutional law will either contradict or affirm my views on this.

I believe the legal basis for any potential claims by Mr. Gates against Mr. Crowley is quite weak, and Mr. Crowley did not abuse his discretion in arresting Mr. Gates. Otherwise, we would have had innumerable lawsuits prior to this episode and cases to cite establishing more clearly the citizen's right to berate police officers as they investigate and possibly intervene in a crime as it transpires. Other officers might have chosen to handle the situation differently, but nothing in the Constitution protected Mr. Gates from arrest for disorderly conduct.

Berating a police officer investigating a possible crime in response to a 911 call, throwing out fighting words (like "I'll speak with yo mama on the front porch"), and following the police officer onto the front porch and peppering him with verbal assaults in view of the public as he descends the front steps is not speech/conduct protected by the Constitution.

The fact Mr. Gates was in his castle does not give him license to behave in this manner. The 4th Amendment and case law give him protection from a warrentless search, but Mr. Crowley had ample probable cause based on the 911 call to sort out Mr. Gates identity and his right to be in the house. Further, Mr. Crowley had grounds to arrest Mr. Gates...even though many of us are sorry he did.

Observer

Debrah said...

This short video has Murphy saying that Ms. Whalen contacted her.

Debrah said...

"I'd love to hear Debrah's comments (sorry KC) on whether women can trust men who drink light beer or even more horrifying, non alcoholic "beer". In which circle of hell did Dante put these fools?"


First, I don't understand what the "sorry KC" means.

Second, and it's only my opinion......I'm a bit wary of anyone who drinks "light" anything.

Or "non-alcoholic" drinks.

Why not simply turn up a bottle of vinegar and drink that?

It would be a lot cheaper.

Why bother?

I don't recommend that anyone drink or not drink; however, no one can deny the health benefits of drinking wine.....in moderation.

IMO, beer stinks, but it's become one of those "guy things" in which partaking is supposed to be a bonding experience.

Judging by the pictures from the White House photo-op, those beer mugs were silly props and were still full---no heavy drinkers, they---as the cameras rolled.

Staged, sealed, delivered.....it's yours.

With apologies to Stevie Wonder.

Debrah said...

Jane Shaw, the woman I met briefly at the Duke conference back in March, has written a noteworthy column.

Tailor-made for the Brodhead administration.

"For years now, we have heard about the politicized faculty on our university campuses. Less known and equally disturbing is the lack of accountability by the administrators and trustees who are nominally their employers. One-Party Classroom reminds us, first, that the power of faculty to teach what they want is increasingly abused. It reminds us, second, that their supposed bosses are unwilling to take charge, even when the evidence of intellectual bullying is plain for all to see."

Debrah said...

Gates-gate


In other words, pay no attention to the fact that the mayor of Cambridge, the governor of Massachusetts, and the president of the United States--all of whom have spoken out in his (Crowley's) favor--are African American. According to Gates, that only serves to obscure the true nature of our society.

Hieronymus Braintree said...

My guess is that the reason Wendy Murphy is representing Whalen is because she wants Whalen to claim that Gates was not acting wildly when he was arrested.

I've looked this thing over and I am definitely in the minority in that I think Crowley's behavior was appropriate and that Gates deserved to be arrested. I think what we have here is a belligerant prima donna.

First off, Crowley's story is extremely consistent. He was trying to investigate a burglary and Gates responded like a first-rate jackass playing fake victim to Crowley's supposed racism when Crowley, who has been voluntarilly defended (and comforted on CNN) by black cops as definitely not a racist, was doing Gates the favor of making sure his home wasn't being burglarized again. Having probable cause, he followed Gates into his home who finally showed him ID, while continuing to throw a tantrum, and gave him the old you-don't-know-who-you're-dealing-with routine. That, BTW, is what you call a threat. It say's "I'm so important and powerful that I shall soon extract some retribution at your expense." Gates then followed Crowley outside, continuing his wing ding according to a fellow officer arriving on the scene. If you make a loud public spectacle of yourself outdoors, guess what? That's disorderly conduct.

Cops cannot afford to let themselves get bullied. If a white senator behaved like that, I'd want him arrested too, especially if he were Republican. He'd have earned it. Gates, it seems, figured quite accurately that the power structure would rally around him and not the cop, because that's exactly what happened.

Two points, when Gates decided to go public he had himself interviewed by his, um, duaghter, who predictably behaved like a perfect little lickspittle acting w/o even so much as a pretense of skepticism. Try to imagine the liberal response if Crowley went running to his mother. And, incidentally, Gates story even with his fawning heir supporting every word, was only able to come up only the most minimally detailed story. Compare that to Crowley's police report.

Second, Crowley stood up to real reporters after the beer summit. Gates issued a statement and ran from anyone who might ask him an inconvenient question or two.

That's just not the way a person who has a solid story behaves.

There will be no law suit. The last thing Gates wants is to put himself on the stand. He's running scared.

Anonymous said...

KC is astounded by who Ms. Whalen's lawyer is but not that a 911 caller felt compelled to retain a lawyer?
Pffft.
North of Detroit.

A Duke Dad said...

Vincent "Fast Eddie" Clark said:

There is no reason to be mean-spirited and vindictive.

Yes, I agree with that.

But, Fast Eddie, wouldn't you agree, that filing false police reports and perjury are "mean-spirited and vindictive" ?

And, Fast Eddie, wouldn't you agree that lying to railroad three innocent people into jail, facing 30 year terms each is also "mean-spirited and vindictive" ?

And, in addition to this lying whore, wouldn't you say that the chorus of enablers and supporters, each looking to further their agenda or wallet, are also "mean-spirited and vindictive" ?

No, Fast Eddie, I do NOT accept your smarmy attempt to gloss over a truly evil act - a contemporary Scottsboro. That she first accused three young men of something that never happened ... and then continued to repeat and embellish the fiction. All without regard to the consequences to others.

Debrah said...

LaShawn Barber's Henry Louis Gates Needs A Shrink

jamil hussein said...

No racism here: The New Black Panther teachable moment. Nice to see this widely condemned on the front pages of New York (USSR) Times and CBS "News". /sarc

"No whites" signs
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/nbpp2.jpg

Anonymous said...

vodpod.com/watch/1974991-fox-news-legal-analyst-... - 64k -

Judge Napalitano, a well known advocate for civil liberties, analyzes the Gates situation and concludes the episode violated the 4th Amendment. First, he asserts that Mr. Crowley did not have probable cause or an invitation to enter the property under Mass. law. (I would have loved to hear chapter and verse, plus it's not really clear whether Mr. Gates invited/allowed Mr. Crowley to enter.) And second, the Judge maintains that if you are being disorderly on your own property, even if it's in view of the public, that is ok. You may not be arrested for this. (I would like to hear chapter and verse on that one, too.) Even though the discussion is not quite as thorough as I would like, there it is. I believe the Judge is in the business of defending civil liberties with great vigor rather than subtle analysis...but maybe I am wrong.

I have not read or heard a single police officer say that Mr. Crowley did anything but strictly follow police procedure, so maybe it really would be useful to straighten this out. The country's policemen seem to be in direct disagreement with the Judge. And I am still confused about how precisely Mr. Crowley should have conducted the investigation. The Judge is arguing that Mr. Crowley never should have stepped into the house. Does that mean that Mr. Gates could slam the door and refuse to show his ID? If this had happened would Mr. Crowley have been expected to go get a warrant? What if Mr. Gates had politely sent Mr. Crowley on his way without showing an ID and closed the door gently? What if Mr. Gates had hidden in the closet...could Mr. Crowley have entered to check out the situation? Not if the Judge is correct. All of this seems like useful information for citizens (and burglars) to know.

Observer

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that there has been almost no analyses of "Gates-gate" that has shown the nexus between it and the Duke Lacrosse case.

KC, can you connect the dots, or am I the only one who sees the lines?

RRH

Anonymous said...

Observer said, at 8:37 AM,

"Judge Napalitano, a well known advocate for civil liberties, analyzes the Gates situation and concludes the episode violated the 4th Amendment. First, he asserts that Mr. Crowley did not have probable cause or an invitation to enter the property under Mass. law. (I would have loved to hear chapter and verse, plus it's not really clear whether Mr. Gates invited/allowed Mr. Crowley to enter.) And second, the Judge maintains that if you are being disorderly on your own property, even if it's in view of the public, that is ok. You may not be arrested for this. (I would like to hear chapter and verse on that one, too.)"

Judge Napolitano begged his own question: He said, "If Gates was arrested for his words", then the arrest was illegal. Well, no shit, Judge. But if Gates was arrested for his behavior, then what? "Oh, then it's legal!" OK, thanks, Judge.

The reason the First Amendment doesn't protect the right to "shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater", is because it doesn't protect shouting of any kind in a public theater. It's not the words, it's the behavior.

RRH

Anonymous said...

A Duke Dad said...

1) The 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, was asked the race of the two suspicious men. Whalen was very unsure, said possibly one was hispanic. This is clear in the tape of the 911 call.

Crowley's report, which was on the web days before the tapes were released, states when he arrived at the scene, he first spoke with Whalen, before approaching the house. Whalen told Crowley she had seen "two black men with backpacks on the porch" ... "one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry".

What caused Whalen to change her story. Does she stand behind the "two black men forcing the door"[?]


Here's one plausible explanation: Recall that an older woman first drew Whalen's attention to the activity and asked Whalen to call 911 on her cellphone. At that point, when the operator asked Whalen about the race(s) of the perpetrators, Whalen -- who had not had a clear look -- could have plausibly said, "I'm not sure, one of them might have been Hispanic".

Then, after hanging up with 911 and while waiting with the elderly lady for the police to arrive, Whalen probably asked the older woman what she saw, since it is apparent that the older woman saw the incident more clearly and from an earlier point in time. The older woman probably said to Whalen that she saw it was two black men, and it was this that Whalen was reporting to Crowley when he arrived.

Make sense?

RRH

Hieronymus Braintree said...

I just read over at the Daily Howler that "Whalen's lawyer" "'[D]oes not believe the police acted inappropriately' in making the arrest." Assuming that's the egregious Murphy, so much for my prediction.

Whalen, will probably endure another round of being called a racist.

A nony mouse said...

Anonymous said...

Is Harvard a state school?

7/31/09 10:18 PM
-----

No, Silly. Of course not.

It is a Communist School

Anonymous said...

sipon http://cciworldwide.org/members/Annuity-Calculator.aspx upumping http://cciworldwide.org/members/Bariatric-Surgery.aspx faxed http://cciworldwide.org/members/Electric-Blankets.aspx newns http://gotuc.net/members/Furnace-Filters/default.aspx vilai http://gotuc.net/members/Vending-Machines/default.aspx brechtje http://gotuc.net/members/Kitchen-Cabinets/default.aspx ritm http://gotuc.net/members/Slipcovers/default.aspx lift

Anonymous said...

Cool blog you got here. I'd like to read something more about this theme. Thank you for giving this information.