A man is harassed and threatened with arrest. He has done nothing wrong. He becomes indignant about the unjust treatment he is receiving. He proves that he has committed no crime. He is harassed some more, arrested, and brought up on false charges. He complains about the treatment he receives.
If the man is white, the charges are dropped and he might be compensated for his frustration.
If the man is black, the charges are dropped only after the media has been notified - and after all of it, he will be accused of “playing the race card”. Wait; there's more. After this man has been harassed and abused by law enforcement and treated like a common criminal for entering his own home, and then arrested without probable cause, he will then come under scrutiny by the white wing media for his character. Makes sense, don't it?
It does if you're a Republican. You want to know what else makes sense if you're a Republican? Comparing the workings of the legal system in regards to African-Americans to the O.J. Simpson trial, claiming that “black men” simply “slit their wives throats” and then “walk free.” If you're a Republican, that makes perfect sense. If you're a Republican, it makes sense to harass a man in his own home, even after he has proven that he resides there. If you're a Republican, it makes sense to attack the victim.
Disorderly conduct was what Officer Crowley charged Henry Louis Gates Jr. with after he realized that Henry was indeed a resident of his home. He looked the well-groomed man up and down and apparently deduced, from the man's indignation, that he was a criminal, that he was dangerous and that he was putting the public at unnecessary risk. After all, most older men who walk with a cane and who reside in nice neighborhoods with valid identification are typically hazardous to public welfare; it had nothing to do with the fact that he was black.
In Massachusetts, in order to be charged with disorderly conduct, one must prove to be:
-
Using immediate force or violence
-
Causing a riotous commotion that constitutes a public nuisance or that creates a hazard to public safety
-
Taking actions that are reasonably likely to affect the public: that is, persons in a place to which the public, or a substantial group, has access
-
Acting recklessly when they knew that their actions would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm
Gates' conduct does not even fit a portion of a margin of a part of a sliver of the description laid out in the Massachusetts statutes. Why didn't the officer simply charge Gates with failure to appear in court? Or arson? Or possession of an illegal substance? It would have made just as much sense.
On a funnier note, people continue to cite the fact that this police officer attempted to save a black man's life 16 years ago as evidence that he is not a racist. I have never heard something more absurd. The fact that this man was unwilling to watch another human being expire in front of him is not grounds nor is it evidence for the argument that Officer Crowley does not discriminate against black men in his daily life. One heroic deed does not redeem a wrong-doing from being known, recognized and acknowledged as a wrong-doing. Officer Crowley wronged Henry Louis Gates Jr. If the treatment that Gates received was not based on race, it was still unfair and unjust treatment. You're not allowed to randomly arrest law-abiding citizens... my friends, that behavior is clearly described as an illegal behavior in Massachusetts. Ask yourself why don't the Republicans care about the Officer's disregard for the law? Well, I can tell you one thing: it has nothing to do with his race.