Greetings Dear Readers! Once again, national events have handed me my topic for July. I seem to go around all month thinking up and then dismissing ideas for my articles. Then, all at once, an event takes place that wipes all of the other ideas off of the drawing board, so to speak. This month’s was a no-brainer, literally as you shall see.
I have been a working police officer for longer than I care to remember (see Let’s Get Started!). I work in a region that is one of the most diverse in the world, Southern California. I work in a suburb of Los Angeles. Now, you can’t get any more diverse than that. It is a daily test of tolerances, understandings and various personal skills. I’m not tooting my horn as some sort of racial expert but I want to take a moment to reiterate my credentials to write an article like this. When an individual seeks employment in law enforcement in Southern California, serving the public means serving everybody, regardless of race, creed, sexual preference and any other type of characteristic that you can think of. If you don’t accept this, you’re in the wrong type of work.
In my career, I have initiated thousands of consensual encounters, which is how the law defines the Cambridge situation. On countless occasions, I have had African American citizens confront me in a similar manner as in this incident. The stops that I am referring to were largely traffic stops, subject stops and investigations as a result of information reported by citizens who thought that they were witnessing criminal activity (Cambridge). I was a field training officer for several years and was charged with teaching rookie cops who to stop and the legal reasons for the stops. As a veteran cop swimming in such an environment every day for twenty plus years, I feel that my take on the Cambridge incident may have some value. See what you think and then decide for yourself.
At face value, this incident seems like a complex one. In actuality, it isn’t. I am going to examine this incident from the point of view of the three principles: Professor Gates, Sergeant Crowley and Barack Obama. These three men all played central roles either to their credit or to the detriment of understanding this incident. I have words of wisdom for each of them. Others played periferal roles after the initial reporting of this event but I won’t deal with them here. In no patricular order, let’s discuss Sergeant Crowley’s role first. What did he know at the moment of truth? He monitored a broadcast over his police radio that two men appeared to have used force to enter a house. As you know, dear reader, most people use their key to open the front door of their house without too much trouble. Right off the bat, the “reasonable officer” (a legal term used to define a generic officer’s processing of information) would pay attention to this application of physical force to enter a residence. This reported fact is in and of itself very unusual, even suspicious. Next, the officer copied information that these two men were seen carrying backpacks. Even though countless citizens carry backpacks in their daily lives, in this case, the combination of force used on the door of the house coupled with their possession of backpacks raises the level of suspicion to that of “reasonable suspicion”, the first step in any criminal investigation. Burglars commonly carry something in which to place and remove property stolen from the location, such as jewelry, electronics, money, silverware or many other small items of value. So as Sergeant Crowley arrives on scene, he knows all of this and is already thinking that something suspicious may be occurring. Some legal experts would argue that these facts when taken together rise to the next level of suspicion which is “probable cause”, indicating that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring or will occur.
As Sergeant Crowley makes his initial visual assessment of the scene, he finds an open front door and two men inside of the house, both wearing jackets. Again, the reasonable officer, taking into account that which his five senses tell him, sees jackets and knows that jackets hide weapons, specifically handguns. Due to this observation, he must be very aware of his officer survival. Again, he is acting prudently and I’m sure cautiously.
Next, Sergeant Crowley initiates conversation aimed at ascertaining the identities of the two men in the house and their reason for being inside. Again, dear reader, keep in mind that the sergeant has never met either of the two men before and does not know them from anybody else in the city. (Don’t make the mistake of looking at these facts in hindsight as a fair assessment calls for you to evaluate them as the event unfolds, not days after. Remember this.) Sergeant Crowley’s questions will seek to answer two immediate questions: who are you and what are you doing inside of this house. After those two things are verified, then there is time for pleasantries, but not before.
Based on what I’ve read, Sergeant Crowley is an eminently trained officer, very well schooled in race relations and racial profiling. All that aside, I will state that what happens next is a racial issue. However, is it a “profiling” issue, as the exploitative news media constantly reports? No, it is absolutely not. Sergeant Crowley was investigating a set of facts reported to him by two women watching the use of force applied to a front door of a residence. He was doing his job as a sworn protector of life and property.
What happens next is open to conjecture. The content of the verbal exchanges between Sergeant Crowley and one of the men inside of the house cannot be verified. This is inexcusable for any working police officer to have happen to him. Here are my words of advice to Sergeant Crowley, and to every working cop. Carry and activate a digital tape recorder for every public contact. To my knowledge, Sergeant Crowley did not tape this encounter. If that statement proves to be inaccurate, then I will gladly stand corrected.
Police officers are public officials. As such, citizens do not enjoy any right to privacy in their interactions with officers. Where I work, most officers have carried and utilized recorders for many years and it is a great benefit to all involved, not just to officers. When everyone’s demeanor is recorded, there is no doubt who the aggressive party is or the type of inflammatory language that may have been used. On countless occasions I know that citizens have come into our station and made formal complaints against officers attacking their demeanor and professionalism. The supervisors who are charged with handling the complaints generally have listened to the tape of the contact beforehand and have been able to address the issue factually. The citizen is also put on notice that he/she is in the process of filing a false police report which could turn around and lead to their being charged and prosecuted. Audio taping is invaluable in today’s policing environment. If Sergeant Crowley was not using one, he should have. Then, this incident would have had about a five minute lifespan and the errors in judgement described below would not have negatively compounded this issue.
Next, let’s look at the other half of this mix – Professor Gates. Unfortunately, from all that we know and all that has been reported from various sources, it is the professor’s demeanor and self-characterization as a victim of racial profiling that has driven this deplorable incident. This is really a shame. When a fair minded person examines even a snippet of the verbage employed by Gates (Racist! Do you know who I am? This is what happens to black men in America! I’ll see yo’ mama!), one is struck by the strident personal attack leveled at Sergeant Crowley. One would ask, for what purpose? Was Gates attempting to intimidate a police officer investigating possible criminal activity? Does Gates think that he’s somehow above the law? Does Gates not know that a citizen has a duty and responsibility to cooperate with any lawful efforts of a police officer in the commission of his duties, such as crime investigations? Does Gates not know that it is a misdemeanor to delay, obstruct or hinder an officer in any way in the commission those duties?
Only Professor Gates knows the answers to these questions. However, taking his words and actions together, it is apparent that he acted in an inflammatory manner and created a mountain out of a mole hill. If I am in the place of Sergeant Crowley, the first thing that I ask of Gates it that he produce valid identification, that is ID issued by the State or Federal governments. Once Gates produces that, and I check to make sure it isn’t fictitious (it’s another misdemeanor to possess fake ID), then the incident is probably over and the two men can behave like human beings. However, the verbal escalation attributed to Gates as described in this incident only served to inflame and prolong the contact, producing the childish behavior that the country now mulls over. This prolonged tirade leads Crowley to ask for additional officers and ultimately to Gates’ arrest.
I have only one piece of advice for Professor Gates. Next time, why don’t you just show your legal ID? This failure to comply with a simple logical request by Crowley lead to everything that followed, to the detriment of everyone involved. Simple cooperation with the police was a no-brainer. But obviously, in Gates’ state of mind, there are other issues that preclude him from acting rationally when he is asked to account for himself, as we all are from time to time. His reactions to this situation were deplorable and I actually feel sorry for him. I will leave it up to the experts to account for his behavior as I have already given him my simple words of advice. Gates also owes a “thank you” to the two citizens who saw what was going on at the entrance to his house and reported it. I ask Professor Gates this question: what if the two men seen at his doorway were actually burglars? Do you not want to live in a neighborhood where citizens actually look out for each other? I would argue that his words and actions are counter to a healthy neighborhood environment.
Now, for the third player. This is none other than Barack Obama. Here too, I find his post event words to be highly deplorable and far below the honorable office that he now occupies. His statements were totally inappropriate for someone with such awesome responsibilities. As an attorney, he should know far better than to offer specific comment on something about which he didn’t have all the facts. This is my third no-brainer. Don’t weigh in, especially if you’re the president of the United States, if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Feel free to utilize the phrase “no comment” in situations about which you are uninformed and that may be highly inflammatory. Then maybe the next day you won’t have to backtrack and be caught publicly mumbling something about “carefully calibrating” your words. Your failure to realize this lesson might just cause unneeded fuel to be poured on some unfortunate fire in the future, causing great harm to the country that you serve. I would ask that you take my advice to heart, Mr President.
As always, dear readers, think this through for yourself. Your comments are welcome.
All the best, Tim