That might be a reason to fire you for being rude, Mike, but it's certainly not a reason to arrest you.
As to your larger point, I think we have the right to protest what we perceive to be unfair treatment, both in court and at the time of an arrest. Gates' rude behavior is irrelevant to whether or not the arrest was justified.
I think crimes like disorderly conduct are written in an overly-broad fashion because the actions in question are very context-dependent. That said, I think only a very attenuated reading of the statute would justify this arrest. The legal consensus (per Slate Magazine) seems to reflect this.
One caveat: while we're under no legal obligation to treat the police with respect, I do think their job warrants some measure of social recognition. In most encounters with law enforcement, I try to be respectful and polite. I don't think that should stop us from protesting unfair treatment, however.
What E.D. said. As I wrote in the original post, I don't care to speculate about the guy's personal opinions. What matters is the end result, which, I think, is an example of misconduct.
The very act of apprehension - which can incur significant costs and does involve quite a bit of judgment - can create injustice that won't be remedied by a post-facto court decision. Your framework for enforcement justifies unlimited abuse as long as the victim receives the dubious benefit of delayed judicial oversight somewhere down the line. You'll excuse me if I find this suggestion extremely dubious.
Oh come on, Mike, you're better than that. A guy gets back from a long trip abroad, has to break into his own home, is then confronted by a heavily-armed police officer, and his first response is "let me grab my Harvard ID - this is going to make for a great sales pitch for my next book?!?!" Read McWhorter on the incident for some background - Gates is known as a respected academic, not a rabble-rouser.
Here's the legal definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts:
http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm
Was Gates someone who ". . . engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose?" I'm skeptical.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that Gates' response was intemperate and verbally abusive. I still don't see how this justifies the responding officer's decision to arrest and charge him.
The police report that indicates Gates was only guilty of being an asshole? Yeah, I've read it. Unless we've suddenly criminalized verbal abuse, I fail to see how this justifies the responding officer's actions.
There are also questions about the accuracy of the police report:
For starters, police used an investigatory exemption in the public records law to bar the public’s right to view Gates’ police report. Even after the charges against Gates were dropped, police were unwilling to release the report and, mysteriously, a leaked copy that appeared on Boston.com’s Web site was replaced the next day with a less complete version. Globe editors declined to explain to the Chronicle why the documents were swapped, while the department said it was conducting an internal investigation to find out who leaked the arrest report.
My roommate (and very good friend) is a cop, so I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you're saying. A police officer's job is difficult, which is a good reason to venerate their profession, but it's also a good reason to subject law enforcement to extra scrutiny. In much the same way that the work of a nuclear physicist merits more supervision than a janitor, the complicated nature of the job demands additional oversight.
Moreover, contesting police abuse in court should be the option of last resort, not our first choice. Acquiring a lawyer and pushing a case through the court system is an incredibly high bar to clear for most people.
One more thing: this particular incident took place in a neighborhood in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Not exactly the hood, if you know what I mean.
I'm unfamiliar with the gender breakdown of police violence, but if female officers are in fact significantly less likely to be involved in accidental shootings than male officers, I suspect this is because there are dramatically fewer women on the force.
I think this is largely correct (Freddie and I have written as much earlier). The problem with Simon's prescription is that it seems entirely detached from reality. I mean, he's arguing in favor of a subscription-based service modeled on cable television, but he seems totally unaware that cable had to CREATE NEW CONTENT to actually attract paying subscribers. The Post and the Times aren't offering any exciting new coverage - to the contrary, they're hemorrhaging experienced journalists as we speak. Other mediums - television, the Internet - may not fill the substantive gap left by print journalism, but consumers are already adopting alternative news sources, and I think that walling off newspaper content is only going to accelerate that trend.
In much the same way that I don't hold Malthus accountable for not anticipating the Industrial Revolution, I wouldn't really hold it against Erhlich for being wrong about population growth three decades ago. His hysterics since then, on the other hand . . .
Fair point, though in my experience, Rosenfeld's style reflects certain widely-held assumptions about how a "real" academic paper should be written.
I'd also argue that the tendency to over-use jargon is linked to the rigid style of academic prose. It's almost a signifier - "this is a respectable academic document; treat it accordingly."
These are all fair criticisms, but one thing that struck me about this paper is how stilted and overly-formal it sounds to a general audience. I may have taken the analogy between magazine articles and academic papers too far, but would it really be that bad for academics to present their work in a more accessible format (albeit with footnotes/statistical analysis/counter-examples)? My larger argument (which probably wasn't clear from the original post) isn't that academic papers should become Rolling Stone articles. Rather, academic authors could stand to adopt a few stylistic tics from popular authors.
Anyway, I've enjoyed this back-and-forth immensely. It's nice to get feedback from an actual academic.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Some thoughts after starting Nozick.”
Seconded.
On “Is the Criminal Justice System racist?”
No problem. I thought Mac Donald's essay was particularly convincing.
On “Second Thoughts”
It's incidental to my larger point about how we should prioritize law enforcement.
"
Guys -
I think we've collectively beaten the Gates argument to death. Besides, this post isn't about the details of his arrest.
On “A few more things on Gates”
Mike, Jaybird -
You've been going at this for days. It might be time to agree to disagree and move on.
"
HA. Wow - totally missed that.
"
Patterico - a district attorney, I believe, and certainly no fan of the ACLU - also thinks that the arrest was inappropriate:
http://patterico.com/2009/07/22/was-henry-louis-gates-arrested-because-of-racism-a-response-to-scott-eric-kaufman/
As I said, I think this reflects an emerging legal consensus.
"
That might be a reason to fire you for being rude, Mike, but it's certainly not a reason to arrest you.
As to your larger point, I think we have the right to protest what we perceive to be unfair treatment, both in court and at the time of an arrest. Gates' rude behavior is irrelevant to whether or not the arrest was justified.
"
Doug Hangslow -
I think crimes like disorderly conduct are written in an overly-broad fashion because the actions in question are very context-dependent. That said, I think only a very attenuated reading of the statute would justify this arrest. The legal consensus (per Slate Magazine) seems to reflect this.
"
One caveat: while we're under no legal obligation to treat the police with respect, I do think their job warrants some measure of social recognition. In most encounters with law enforcement, I try to be respectful and polite. I don't think that should stop us from protesting unfair treatment, however.
On “Due Deference”
What E.D. said. As I wrote in the original post, I don't care to speculate about the guy's personal opinions. What matters is the end result, which, I think, is an example of misconduct.
"
The very act of apprehension - which can incur significant costs and does involve quite a bit of judgment - can create injustice that won't be remedied by a post-facto court decision. Your framework for enforcement justifies unlimited abuse as long as the victim receives the dubious benefit of delayed judicial oversight somewhere down the line. You'll excuse me if I find this suggestion extremely dubious.
"
Oh come on, Mike, you're better than that. A guy gets back from a long trip abroad, has to break into his own home, is then confronted by a heavily-armed police officer, and his first response is "let me grab my Harvard ID - this is going to make for a great sales pitch for my next book?!?!" Read McWhorter on the incident for some background - Gates is known as a respected academic, not a rabble-rouser.
"
Here's the legal definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts:
http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm
Was Gates someone who ". . . engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose?" I'm skeptical.
"
I'm perfectly willing to concede that Gates' response was intemperate and verbally abusive. I still don't see how this justifies the responding officer's decision to arrest and charge him.
"
The police report that indicates Gates was only guilty of being an asshole? Yeah, I've read it. Unless we've suddenly criminalized verbal abuse, I fail to see how this justifies the responding officer's actions.
There are also questions about the accuracy of the police report:
For starters, police used an investigatory exemption in the public records law to bar the public’s right to view Gates’ police report. Even after the charges against Gates were dropped, police were unwilling to release the report and, mysteriously, a leaked copy that appeared on Boston.com’s Web site was replaced the next day with a less complete version. Globe editors declined to explain to the Chronicle why the documents were swapped, while the department said it was conducting an internal investigation to find out who leaked the arrest report.
(from http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x592691395/Editorial-Cambridge-Police-Department-still-has-a-lot-to-explain)
"
Thanks for the link, Bob.
"
Mike -
My roommate (and very good friend) is a cop, so I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you're saying. A police officer's job is difficult, which is a good reason to venerate their profession, but it's also a good reason to subject law enforcement to extra scrutiny. In much the same way that the work of a nuclear physicist merits more supervision than a janitor, the complicated nature of the job demands additional oversight.
Moreover, contesting police abuse in court should be the option of last resort, not our first choice. Acquiring a lawyer and pushing a case through the court system is an incredibly high bar to clear for most people.
One more thing: this particular incident took place in a neighborhood in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Not exactly the hood, if you know what I mean.
"
Steven Donegal -
I'm unfamiliar with the gender breakdown of police violence, but if female officers are in fact significantly less likely to be involved in accidental shootings than male officers, I suspect this is because there are dramatically fewer women on the force.
Also, how is this relevant?
"
How very gangster of you, Jaybird.
On “Wired”
I think this is largely correct (Freddie and I have written as much earlier). The problem with Simon's prescription is that it seems entirely detached from reality. I mean, he's arguing in favor of a subscription-based service modeled on cable television, but he seems totally unaware that cable had to CREATE NEW CONTENT to actually attract paying subscribers. The Post and the Times aren't offering any exciting new coverage - to the contrary, they're hemorrhaging experienced journalists as we speak. Other mediums - television, the Internet - may not fill the substantive gap left by print journalism, but consumers are already adopting alternative news sources, and I think that walling off newspaper content is only going to accelerate that trend.
On “Sunday, 3PM”
God Bless RSM.
On “Paul Erhlich’s Greatest Hits”
In much the same way that I don't hold Malthus accountable for not anticipating the Industrial Revolution, I wouldn't really hold it against Erhlich for being wrong about population growth three decades ago. His hysterics since then, on the other hand . . .
On “Academic obscurantism for the sake of . . . what?”
Fair point, though in my experience, Rosenfeld's style reflects certain widely-held assumptions about how a "real" academic paper should be written.
I'd also argue that the tendency to over-use jargon is linked to the rigid style of academic prose. It's almost a signifier - "this is a respectable academic document; treat it accordingly."
"
These are all fair criticisms, but one thing that struck me about this paper is how stilted and overly-formal it sounds to a general audience. I may have taken the analogy between magazine articles and academic papers too far, but would it really be that bad for academics to present their work in a more accessible format (albeit with footnotes/statistical analysis/counter-examples)? My larger argument (which probably wasn't clear from the original post) isn't that academic papers should become Rolling Stone articles. Rather, academic authors could stand to adopt a few stylistic tics from popular authors.
Anyway, I've enjoyed this back-and-forth immensely. It's nice to get feedback from an actual academic.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.