By now, many of us are probably tired of this story; however, I would be remiss if I didn't use my legal mind to analyze the initial situation. First, there was a call made to 911. Now that the tape has been released, we know that the "two black guys" story was false. Secondly, we have to look at the charge itself, Public Disorderly Conduct. In order for someone to be arrested for Public Disorderly Conduct, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions did the following: affected the public, that the defendant intended to cause a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
In order for a defendant to be found guilty under MA law of this offense, his actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, the public meaning a place to which the public or a substantial group has access. Thirdly, A person must act recklessly when he consciously ignores, or is indifferent to, the probable outcome of his actions. In other words, the defendant was reckless if he knew, or must have known, that his actions would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but he chose, nevertheless, to run the risk and go ahead with his actions.
Based merely on the definition of "Public" as described in the law, Dr. Gates was not guilty of the alleged crime. Going further into the law, since all other elements hinge on actions being held in "public", he should have not been arrested at his Cambridge home.
Now do I think Officer Crowley is a bigot, No. But do I think he got pissed off that Dr. Gates, or anyone for that matter, had the audacity to question him while performing his duties, Yes! Because of that, he arrested a man that should not have been arrested. The system is set up so that charges, however false in many misdemeanor cases, can be brought by an officer and the defendant has to prove his innocence. Do I also think that Dr. Gates got pissed about being questioned in his home even after he proved who he was, Yes! I would have been pissed too; clearly as stated by the President, cool heads did not prevail.
Officers have to be held accountable; it's part of what keep the system the best in the world. What I don't understand are people who say Crowley can not be a bigot because he taught profiling class and diversity training. Well, that's just an ignorant statement. The history of policing in this country does not lend itself to that conclusion. Officers during the early part of the previous century were sworn to serve and protect their citizens, however, many minorities, specifically Blacks, lost their lives on their watch, and some, by their actual hands. Again, I say I don't think he's a bigot, but teaching diversity or profiling classes doesn't exclude him for the offense of bigotry.
People were also concerned about the black officer coming to the defense of his co-worker/co-union member peer against another black man. What was he suppose to do? Do you honestly think an officer was going to go against another officer regarding actions in the line of duty? If he did, he would have been isolated. Because of his natural obligation to the job, his account and endorsement, whenever given, is bias from inception.
Now that we've gone through the racial implications and everyone is ready to get over it with a can of beer at the White House, let me just say that I'm glad the President had the coconuts to jump into this conversation. That decision was monumental; this is not Washington "as usual". Many stated that he should have left this situation alone because it was a local issue. On the contrary, for the first African American President, a case that so divided the country along racial lines was, and is not a local issue. It's a national issue. This had the potential to rip his base in half, and malign, to use his word, the efforts made in such a historic election. We all have to remain sensitive to racial issues, but race does not have to dominant all discussions and differences of opinion between African Americans and Anglo Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment