Since everyone was wondering about racial profiling by the woman who called the police, it looks like the caller is off the hook. According to the audio that the Cambridge PD released today, Lucia Whalen, the caller, didn’t even know Gates and the driver were black, PLUS she raised the question of whether or not they lived there, citing the fact that they had suitcases (click text for links):
The reason we all thought she identified them as black is because we believed Crowley’s police report. Crowley’s police report claimed she told him “there were two black males with backpacks.” In fact, she didn’t say they were black, nor did she say anything about backpacks. Crowley’s house of cards looks like it’s about to fall. I can understand how people can make mistakes at the heat of the moment, but how can you ignore the fact that the woman specifically says she’s not sure if they’re breaking in because they have suitcases?
Thank goodness for technology. I’m glad the audio will let this woman live in peace.
Related posts:
I also wanted more rice than what could fit inside the wrap....
there are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the plain cold truth!
Hahaha. I think it’s that third side that Crowley doesn’t like. If only he could put handcuffs on this Plain Cold Truth entitity!
wow. i mean WOW. she is waaay off the hook.
The reason we all thought she identified them as black is because we believed Crowley’s police report. Crowley’s police report claimed she told him “there were two black males with backpacks.” In fact, she didn’t say they were black, nor did she say anything about backpacks. Crowley’s house of cards looks like it’s about to fall.
So the obvious question is how Whalen’s initial report (which makes no mention of “two black men”) got transformed into “two black men” breaking and entering into the home, as claimed in Jim Crowley’s report.
And what is really absurd are some of the reader comments from the Boston Globe article above on Whalen’s report and the released police tapes.
These people are touting Whalen’s initial complaint as proof that Gates was somehow “playing the race card” yet carefully ignore the inconsistency between Whalen’s and Crowley’s reports.
I think people who support Crowley have trouble with reading comprehension. If they would maybe stare a little longer at the words, they’d see that one of the only reasons people assumed it was racial was that Crowley fudged his report.
I really am wondering how Crowley made that “mistake.” In the heat of the moment, I can understand some transcription problems, but creating a racial profile when she clearly said she didn’t know the race of the two men? And ignoring the fact that she herself cast doubt on whether or not they were breaking in? It seems that Crowley already made up his mind that he was gonna be big boss.
By the way, check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/27/756315/-NYT:-Sgt.-Crowley-failed-to-answer-radio-3-times
It sheds some light on why all the Cambridge PD is kissing up to Crowley–he’s a big boss in that department. From the NY Times:
In fact, Sergeant Crowley is in charge of one of the most sensitive offices within his department — the Private Paid Detail Office. He assigns fellow officers to highly sought jobs needed by the private sector, like traffic control and security. “It’s a job with an enormous amount of discretion and responsibility,” Commissioner Haas said.
You need to change your title to “off” not “of” like it is now.
Second thing I am not sure if it even makes a difference if she said the people she thought might be breaking in are black. That doesn’t mean she is some how racial profiling. If you see some one you think might be breaking in and describe them to the police and say their race well it does make it easier for the police to identify the possible suspect.
I think the more troubling thing than this:
“The reason we all thought she identified them as black is because we believed Crowley’s police report. Crowley’s police report claimed she told him “there were two black males with backpacks.” In fact, she didn’t say they were black, nor did she say anything about backpacks. Crowley’s house of cards looks like it’s about to fall.” (thanks for the quote Larry
)
is the fictionalized conversation that Crowley claimed ot have with the caller outside Gates’ home. Like Byron, I can understand misquoting someone, or making typographical errors in a police report, but inventing a conversation that the caller denies ever took place? That’s not ‘he said she said’, that’s a flat out lie! Either that or there’s a conspiracy to ruin Crowley… yeah, that’s it *sarcasm*.
Thanks, Lingyai. I made the change.
I think you’re right. The point that some people are trying to push is that she wouldn’t have called the police if they were white. I vehemently disagree. She couldn’t tell their race from the distance, and she even mentions that they might be living there since they had luggage. Clearly she was making the call just to do her thing as a good citizen.
Robert,
Now that the truth has come out, isn’t funny that the “good cop” hasn’t stepped forward to set the record straight? Whatever happened to protecting the people of Cambridge? I guess dirty cops always put themselves first.
Yeah, I don’t think Whalen had any prejudice coloring her reasons as to why she made the call. It seemed that she saw two figures trying to force open a door but she wasn’t sure what she was seeing: a break in or not? And if you’re in that position, what do you do? let it slide and then find out that you witnessed someone on your block getting burgled and did nothing about it?
I’ve always wondered what was motivating this guy. Why the defiance? Why the posturing of “I’ll never apologize”? Why the over sensitivity to a remark like, “Ya, I’ll talk with your mama”? Trust me, there are far worse things you could say about someone’s mother!
I have to believe that someone on the force had to be thinking, “What the fuck is Crowley getting so bent over that for? We’ve heard worse things on the job.” They couldn’t ALL be behind Crowley.
And what seems more idiotic is the Cambridge PD brass coming out to show support without even THEM knowing all the facts yet. That’s why sometimes you have to judge slowly in cases like this, even though through our own past experiences, we might jump to a conlusion. But it seems the top brass were trying to bluff their way thru an incident by using the old “the best defense is a good offense” in trying to get the president to apologize to ALL law enforcement and take the focus off on what really happened? These idiots have now invited scrutiny of their PD by the media. You’re going to have investigative journalists following up on any rumor or hint of wrong doing on that PD.
Lawrence O’donnel on MSNBC last night said that the only violation here was one of false arrest. And therefore, the police DID in fact act stupidly. In his article in Time magazine, he writes:
“There is no crime described in Crowley’s official version of the way Gates behaved. Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Nothing else, not a single threatening movement, just yelling. On the steps of his own home. Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. Not a single shouted word or action that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct. That is why the charges had to be dropped.
In classically phony police talk, Crowley refers to “[Gates'] continued tumultuous behavior.” When cops write that way, you know they have nothing. What is tumultuous behavior? Here’s what it isn’t: brandishing a knife in a threatening manner, punching and kicking, clenching a fist in a threatening manner, throwing a wrench or, in the Gates house, maybe a book. If the subject does any of those things, cops always write it out with precision. When they’ve got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing. Phrases like tumultuous behavior…
We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he didn’t know what disorderly conduct is or he decided to show Gates who’s boss the only way he knew how — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing the charges are going to have to be dropped….
The President was right when he called the arrest stupid. It doesn’t mean Crowley is stupid. It means that, in that moment, he made a stupid choice. Barack Obama has made some stupid choices on occasion too. We all do. Everyone who is defending Crowley’s arrest, including his union, needs to reread his report. There is a crime described in there. In fact, Crowley’s report is a written confession of the crime of false arrest.”
Thank you, Time Magazine. At least someone is publishing what we’re all thinking.
This guy lets his ego get in the way and arrests an innocent man, he’s letting an innocent caller take the heat on a lie that he wrote on the police report. Throughout this whole conflict, he’s the only one who ISN’T innocent. Now he’s getting beer at the White House on Thursday, and no doubt he’ll get a book deal as a result of his “ordeal.” He himself may or may not be racist, his book sales will undoubtedly be supported by the less tolerant elements in our society.
Unbelievable.
@ byron:
“Now that the truth has come out, isn’t funny that the “good cop” hasn’t stepped forward to set the record straight? Whatever happened to protecting the people of Cambridge? I guess dirty cops always put themselves first.”
I’m not surprised. For him to come forward at this point would equal the loss of his career thus ruining him and his family financially. He’s protecting them in a fashion, and relying on ‘the fraternity’ to cover his ass. Doesn’t make him any less of a douchenozzle.
@ mojo
“what seems more idiotic is the Cambridge PD brass coming out to show support without even THEM knowing all the facts yet.”
Agreed. the SMART thing for them to do would have been to suspend Crowley (with pay if they wanted to support him) pending an investigation. Shit Mojo, I was going to respond to more of your post, but you bring up so many great points! I particularly agree with the “tumultuous behavior” observation. If I swerve in traffic and get a ticket, there’s great detail about where it happened, how fast I was going, what intersection was nearby. A hundred details. In this case it’s broadstroked. I think your assessment is dead on.