President Obama On The Police
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Those who read my writing and/or interact with me in other venues beside Officer.com know that I’m not a fan of our current President, Barack Obama. I have carefully avoided commenting on him, his politics, his actions, his words - because I do firmly believe that, when at all possible, law enforcement should never be politicized. That said, a matter of law enforcement was recently thrust into the national spotlight when President Obama made some ill-informed comments about a police sergeant and how he performed his duties.
Now, please understand: I might be more forgiving if President Obama had ever served in any military service because doing so would have put him in situations where he may have had to make immediate decisions based on precious little information with potentially large ramifications resulting. I might be more forgiving if President Obama had ever served as a police officer or deputy sheriff or even if he had, at some point in his legal training, attended a citizens’ police academy or something similar. Through all of my research, reading and inquiries, I can’t find any instance of President Obama having done so much as go on a ride-along to increase his knowledge of police work and how law enforcement professionals go about their duties on a daily basis.
With that all said, let me call your attention to the events that occurred in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where a police sergeant received a call for a possible breaking-&-entering in progress. The description he was given, from what I’ve been able to read, was “two black males wearing backpacks”. Having been given such a description we can all agree it would be quite ludicrous for the sergeant to have responded looking for suspects of any other gender or race. He was dispatched with particular information provided and guess what he found?
He found a mature black male in the residence in question and said black male was less than cooperative with the sergeant. What I think has been overlooked is the fact that until that black male suspect has been positively identified AND cleared of any suspicious activity, he needs to be fully cooperative with the police officer doing his job. Instead, that black male suspect chose to be belligerent, insulting and arrogant. The end result was an arrest which made national news; became the topic of discussions about race; and inspired our President to accuse the officer of “acting stupidly”.
Perhaps - just perhaps - if President Obama hadn’t, just moments before, made the statement that he didn’t have all the facts or any first hand knowledge, his comment would be more easily forgiven. However, our President admitted no being fully informed and then accused the sergeant of having acted stupidly.
Of course, his comments just caused the matter to be brought under more of a spotlight and caused law enforcement professional organizations to speak out in support of the officer. In this case, speaking out in support of the officer means speaking against the President and his friend, a Harvard professor. Oh, wait… did I fail to mention that the black male suspect who was arrested was the President’s friend? Yep. So, because the President is as human as the rest of us, it appears that he admitted little to no knowledge and then blindly sided with his friend and made unsupported comments about the police sergeant.
I am on record repeatedly with my thoughts and beliefs about racial profiling, race-based legislation, etc. I don’t believe any single race or group of races, minority or otherwise, should be given preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. The law is supposed to be fair and impartial and applied equally to everyone no matter what their gender, skin color, sexual preference, etc. Yes, I know that doesn’t always happen. The police officers, too, are nothing more than human and equally capable of being flawed or making mistakes - just like our President.
In this case I do believe that the President would show a trait of leadership; a trait of strong character if he would admit that he spoke out of line and without having all the facts. I think it would be to his credit if he’d admit to simply being human and apologize to the law enforcement professionals involved for having passed judgment without having first had all the facts.
In my opinion - my “two cents worth” that I freely admit may not be worth even that - failing to do so leaves President Obama looking arrogant and smug; sure that he has done and can do no wrong. Everybody knows better. Does he?
As a Black male in Law Enforcement I feel for all my brothers, must people can not ever understand what we go through everytime we put on that badge. We just want to go home at the end of the night to see our family. What the President did shocked me. MR PRESIDENT you have lost my vote.. You can’t pass judgement without even reading the report and why would you call members of the thin blue line “STUPIDlY”
I believe what President Obama said is the prevailing thought among the general public. Without so much as a shred of evidence as to what actually took place there are many who immediately condemn the police. The thing that makes the president’s remarks so stunning is the stage on which they were spoken. There should have been a “no comment” or a deferral until the incident is completely resolved. Hopefully Sgt Crowley will examine all the legal options afforded him and make an educated decision on which one he needs to take.
Frank, I believe that all of your comments in your article are dead on. Not knowing all of the facts as the President admitted left him no option but to withhold judgment or comment. But being of the ilk that it appears he can do no wrong called the actions of the P.D. “stupidly” . He has never worn a uniform of our military or police , untill he knows the facts or has worn one of those uniforms, then he should keep his presidental yap zipped.
I FULLY SUPPORT THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION. THE PRESIDENT HAS ETHICALLY GONE OVER THE EDGE WITH HIS TITLE AS PRESIDENT (POTUS). Good thing the officer did not TAZ the man, then all hell would have broken out! I believe that the President should serve in the military in order to qualify to be the PRESIDENT. How can he be Commander in Chief and yet never served a minute in uniform. WHERE IS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOW?? HE CAN SHIELD HIS FRIEND BUT HE WILL NOT PROVIDE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!! WHAT GIVES?? I have a right mind to send a copy of my birth certificate to the President so he can compare them at the same time I will send him my military paperwork as well!!! Mr. President the ball is in your court, bring on your honest “A” game I am ready are you??
I guess that the saddest part is that Obama is repeating everything he has done in his political life, and making judgment calls without information. His entire political has shown that he goes off half-cocked without enough information to handle the situation properly. He sells out the true and condemns the proper, in order to promote his socialist agenda. Race is really not his issue, but he wants to rule the world, and he doesn’t seem to care who he steps on to do it. I feel that if a description of a potential criminal is given to the police to assist them in finding them, race is not the issue, in this case ‘black men’ was the same as saying a man with a long scar on his face or arm, it is just a description of help for the officers. Obama owes all the police an apology and publicly.
Obama spoke stupidly. But what do you expect from a “lawyer” who manufactures “facts” in lieu of collecting them first? Gates brought th situation on himself when with his big mouth, when he should have been thanking Sgt. Crowley for checking on the breaking and entering reported. Obama will only support his own private police, if or when he can get them in place. Remember that civilian security force he talked about? Maybe it is structured in ACORN. He has told the police what he thinks of them now. He and Gates are racists of the hightest order in my estimation.
Of course Obama acted like the impostor that he is. What good can you expect out of him? That’s what happens when our constitution is grossly violated and we allow it. Show us the certificate! Until then, he will remain an impostor.
Now that the 911 tapes have been released and it’s been proven that the caller made no mention of race until the dispatcher repeatedly prodded her to supply something (which she said was possibly Hispanic), it comes out that Crowley’s police report was fabricated to justify his arrest of Professor Gates. No posts here since the news that the police report was fabricated. That’s telling. And the fact that Crowley arrested Gates as revenge for not showing proper respect proves that the issue here isn’t about race, it’s about cops’ self-inflated egos. I can understand your fear of being killed in the line of duty every time you show up for work, but vindictive arrests such as this one, and the subsequent termination of a Boston cop for calling Gates a ‘banana-eating jungle monkey’ proves the bigger threat to the general public is having an encounter with a cop who thinks he’s God. Maybe it’s time for classes that teach cops to respect the law.
Phillip:
Your comments are appreciated.
I too think it’s unfortunate that the police report was incorrect and that the call - as dispatched - wasn’t quoted correctly. I’m sure that any police officer writing a report and quoting such is all too aware that dispatch tapes can be easily pulled and checked. Stating that “Crowlye’s police report was fabricated” calls into question the entire report and his account of the entire incident. That is equally as unfair as using Professor Gates’ statement about “whitey standing in judgment of him” on his Yale application against him today.
The “fact” you cite of Crowley arresting Gates in revenge is a severe accusation and one I would counsel anyone to be careful about making. I think the Cambridge PD did a disservice both to the responding officers AND to Professor Gates by dismissing the charges. If, in fact, he was arrested for anything other than having actually committed the crime, then he NEEDS his day in court to vindicate himself AND to justify legal / civil action against the police department.
It disturbs me that you connect Sgt. Crowley - a man who teaches officers how NOT to racially profile people - to the Boston cop who made those disgusting remarks. Additionally, it is a huge mistake to believe that either of those two officers - individually or together - fully represent the over 900,000 law enforcement professionals in America today. Doing that is just as wrong as assuming that Professor Gates represents EVERY American of a non-Caucasian cutlural background, or that President Obama represents EVERY politician. How about if we judge each man on his merits instead of on the color of his skin? or the uniform he wears? or what someone else said?
Just a thought.
Frank - Your post brings up some good points. Thanks for responding in an intelligent and respectful manner. These are my thoughts:
1.) The race of the individuals should have had no bearing on how Sgt Crowley responded to the call. He was, as you say, an instructor teaching how not to use profiling, and there was nothing in the dispatch tapes about black men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDapglzINc
So why did he insert the comments about being told there were two black men breaking into the house? That shows HIS sensitivity to race, most likely to convey a heightened state of caution and alarm and an excuse for what happened later. And the fact that he included those statements, knowing that the tapes could be checked, suggests he never anticipated the firestorm his arrest would create, and expected it to be routine. Just business as usual. This rightfully does call into question the entire report and his account of it. My guess is defense attorneys are right now combing through every arrest he’s made looking for a pattern of behavior similar to this, as they should. If he’s profiling people, he has no business being a cop, much less a profiling instructor. As for what Gates said years ago in his application to Yale, to use that as an argument against him would be to open the doors to the things white people were saying to him that provoked such a response. I’m still shocked by the blatant racism I hear and see leveled against the President of the United States on a regular basis. If for nothing else, his election was good in that it brought to the surface what political correctness buried, so people can be seen as they truly are, not how they wish to appear.
2.) I don’t make the charge lightly that Sgt Crowley arrested Prof Gates as revenge for not showing proper respect. I know from personal experience how that goes down. A cop who demands respect has no problem fabricating a police report. In my case, a cop coerced someone to make a citizen’s arrest based on false information that the cop knew was false, because he had no probable cause. But I didn’t show him proper respect after he began accusing me, the victim of harrassment, for his being called out. So I do know how that goes down. And it’s not uncommon. Cops routinely cover for each other. Here’s a perfect example:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
I’m not saying all cops are as dirty as the ones profiled here, but they’re not rare, especially in California. Almost every day a new story comes across the blogsphere about some outragous behavior involving tasers or absuse. For the sake of the entire profession, clean cops should speak out against the thugs who are creating an increasingly hostile environment for them to work in. There’s a book going around LA titled “How to Kill a Cop” that details unbelievable ways to murder police. For instance - there are several different variations of surreptitiously connecting a wire with a helium-filled balloon attached to a police car while the cop is busy writing a report or a ticket at night, and releasing the balloon under a high-voltage power line. The balloon floats up to the power line and sends a lightning bolt into the car, instantly killing anyone inside. There are dozens of equally deadly ideas in there, all designed to kill cops in uniform and at their residence. This is going around the Los Angeles area, and I’m sure it’s in other areas, too.
These are just my thoughts on the situation as I understand it. I’m sure there are other perspectives that I’m not aware of. Regards.
As a retired police officer, I have plenty to say about the incident involving Professor Gates. Keep in mind that I am multiply decorated, with commendations for bravery, and that in my entire career, I have never ever had a complaint on me at Internal Affairs Bureau. I worked in one of the most dangerous police districts in America, the 25th District, which is commonly referred to as the Badlands.
As soon as the Police Sargeant ascertained that Professor Gates was breaking into his own house, his investigation should have ceased. He had reasonable suspicion to investigate Dr. Gates, but after his suspicions were allayed, when Dr. Gates gave him identification, it should have been an “unfounded” disposition of this investigation. In Pennsylvania, where I was a cop, in order for a disorderly conduct arrest to take place, the disturbance must be PUBLIC, not private. Since Dr. Gates was on his own property, this arrest did not have that necessary componant. Therefore, the sargeant acted INPRUDENTLY, in other words, STUPIDLY. Obama is actually correct in his assessment of the incident. This Sargeant would at best be suspended in Philadelphia, and perhaps fired. Stop being an apologist for sloppy, slovenly police patrol. By the way, I am WHITE!
Phillip:
I agree with when you make reference to “Dirty cops.” But that being said, there is “Dirty” Accountants, Lawyers, Doctors, and so on. I am a member of of a large department and I am currently assigned to the patrol division. I work in conjunction with several departments as well and during my career I have never witnessed anyone taking bribes, violating the use of force policy, or racial profiling. If you consider “profiling” as making contact with suspicous subjects that are loitering in alleys, around gas stations, known drug houses, then I suppose I am guilty of profiling. The “profiling” I am speaking of though is not racially motivated. If a harvard professor was hanging out at known drug area I would have no problem making contact with him and investigating his/her reasoning for being there.
With all the media attention this incident has recieved it is hard to know what to consider fact or otherwise. I know that you mentioned that Sgt. Crowely fabricated his incident report because he referred to the subjects as “two black men.” I know that I work 12 hour shifts and at the end of the shift I might not be able to tell you how the original dispatch was broadcasted. I do not know exactley why it was written that way in his report but we should also leave some room for the unknown.
Also, there was another Sergeant at the scene. Forgive me as I do not recall his name but he was of African American descent. I read on CNN.com where he had commented to the media that he has been branded a “Uncle Tom” because he supported Sgt. Crowley’s actions on scene.
In the state where I work (Forgive me for not posting) it is illegal for someone to obstruct an investigation, not to identify themselves during police contact, and also, a subject can be disorderly on his/her own property if the behavior “alarms or disturbs” another person(s).
Your postings are very well written and I can see that you are coming from a very well researched and educated stance. All I can tell you is that police work is not easy. Alot of times adrenaline is a factor and when it is, you fall back to your training. Most police officers I know during an adrenaline charged incident only remember how the person(s) violated the letter of the law.
I apologize for the format. I can only see half of the screen for some reason.
The Crowley/Gates incident should be viewed from the beginning. Upon arriving at the scene of a “possible B&E in progress” Crowley had the following info: two male suspects, one possible Hispanic, suitcases involved, suspects maybe inside, 911 caller on scene outside.
Crowley stated in his police report that Whalen, the 911 caller, told him of “two black men with backpacks on the front poarch”. Whalen has publically refuted this statement. Neither Crowley nor the CPD have countered.
Accepting Whalen’s account as accurate, Crowley had essentially no first hand knowledge of the situation until he saw Gates in the house behind a glass door.
At this point did Crowley view Gates as a suspect? Crowley approached Gates and asked (ordered) him to step outside. Gates refused. Does Crowley’s suspicions of Gates increase? Crowley supposely explained that he was with the CPD and responding to a possible B&E. He asked Gates for ID. At some point Gates leaves the front door and goes to retrive his ID as asked (ordered).
The next part is the crucial part. Both Crowley and Gates have stated that Crowley is in the Gates house. Neither Gates nor Crowley have explicitly stated that Crowley was invited in nor have they indicated that Crowley asked to enter and Gates refused.
But the important fact is that unless Crowley was explicitly invited in Crowley had no legal right to be in Gates’ house unless there existed probable cause (PC) and exigent circumstances(EC). Exactly what PC was there? Or EC? Crowley does not mention any of these in his report. If PC existed Crowley could have arrested Gates outside his house without a warrant. If EC existed Crowley could have arrested Gates inside his house without a warrant for B&E. Crowley didn’t. Thus no PC and no EC.
If Gates does file a lawsuit it will (should) be based on the illegality of Crowley being in Gates’ house which precipitated the DC arrest.
On Racial Profiling - So now, airport security should develop a keen eye trained on little old ladies with pastel colored parasols in the hope of catching possible terrorist/s who might hijack an airplane. And then, turn a blind eye on Ass Mohammed Ali Hole wearing a turban assuming that he possibly cannot be a terrorist because he is not brandishing an AK 47. When one wants to catch fish, should he be in a river/ocean or in a cement pond?
As for the messiah - When he looks at himself in front of a mirror every morning when he wakes up, we should ask him if he sees a black or a white man.
I thought using the race card is exclusive to less erudite African-Americans. Apparently, it is not.