Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow op-ed arrow I Fought the Law...
Jul 25 2009
I Fought the Law... | Print |  E-mail
Op_ed
By Bob Boldt   

Translation
Bookmark and Share

ImageI Fought the Law...

“During the Roman siege of Syracuse, General Marcus Claudius Marcellus had ordered that Archimedes, citizen of the besieged city, should not be killed. The world famous mathematician, who was now around 78 years of age, continued his studies in his home after the breach of the city.  His work was disturbed by a Roman soldier. Archimedes protested at this interruption and coarsely told the soldier to leave.  The soldier killed Archimedes on the spot.”

Some time has passed now since the incident between distinguished black Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge’s finest over a mistakenly reported burglary on July 16, 2009.

Briefly, the reported incident went something like this.

“On July 16, a woman in a Cambridge, Massachusetts neighborhood called authorities to report two black men attempting a home robbery. The black men were Harvard Professor Gates and his driver, and the home in question belonged to the noted academic. The duo resorted to jimmying the door open because it was stuck but managed to get inside through the back door.

However, when police arrived on scene and found Gates there, they asked him to provide identification to prove that he was the homeowner. After viewing his ID and confirming that Gates indeed lived in the home, Sergeant James M. Crowley arrested Gates anyway, citing disorderly conduct on his part. After the charges against the professor became public, though, the police department dropped them, calling the arrest “unfortunate and regrettable.”


At the risk of sounding racist and blaming the victim, I am proposing to venture into territory often overlooked in discussions of this sort.  Charges of racial profiling aside, I think that professor Gates was the one who reacted most stupidly to the situation.  Just because you are tenured doesn’t mean you have earned the requisite credits for passing even a basic class in Streetsmarts 101. 

I have known, worked with and had confrontations with beat officers over many years in at least a half a dozen major jurisdictions and I think I have a pretty good idea of the dynamics operating here.  Humans in life threatening situations often resort to behavior dominated by the structures in the brain stem.  That is the portion of the brain closest to the spinal cord.  All neurological signals must pass and clear this part of the neural anatomy, often referred to as the reptilian brain. It holds a vital veto function, either allowing the neural impulses to clear its domain or denying access to the higher mental functions.

Unlike the higher neocortex it is non-rational and sees situations in vastly simpler, clearer terms.  Hunger, fear, rage, sleep deprivation and other forms of stress, often cause this lower brain to kick in shutting off access to the higher more sophisticated processes. Obstacles are seen in terms of clear “good or bad” or “for me or against me” and, often as not, treated with violence as the perceived first, best solution.  In spite of their training, police officers (and soldiers) all to frequently inadvertently fall under the dominance of the reptilian brain. 

Many do not even know this is happening or has happened.  After a high speed chase, or approaching a threatening situation, the officer’s fight/flight response is at its height.  He must instantly make decisions and he really needs his more primitive brain to allow him to have the kind of reaction time that could well make the difference between life and death. 

It can be sometimes very difficult to quickly shut down this response when the action is suddenly defused by the capture of a pursued suspect or the revelation of a mistaken identity as in the case of Professor Gates.  If the policeman, who may actually be in the process of transcending the commands of his brain stem and is in good faith attempting to rationally sort out the situation, is now confronted by verbal attacks and a “bad attitude” on the part of the suspect, it can be difficult for the officer to make the kind of distinctions necessary to truly “protect and defend.”

Professor Gates allegedly responded to the officer’s presumably legitimate request for some identification to prove that he was indeed a resident of the home in question with, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?”  Sorry Professor, wrong answer.  

Would it have made a difference if the “suspect” had matched the classically white professorial archetype wearing pince nez spectacles and Harris tweed?  I am certainly not attempting to excuse the judgment or the behavior of officer Crowley in arresting the indignant professor.  I am simply trying to understand it. 

Racist cops are more a symptom of the problem than the cause of it.  As long as you have a racist Amerika, you will have racist cops.  I do not like what otherwise decent people of any race become when they put on the badge and strap on their tasers and sidearms.  This is as true in big cities like Chicago and New York as it is in my own small town of Jefferson City, Missouri. 

I have found most police I have had contact with to be lazy, uncaring, corrupt and criminally prone themselves.  I have found them to regularly exhibit abhorrent behavior and rarely have I ever found any association with them to turn out satisfactorily.  I find it impossible to believe that the example of one or two good apples can redeem the whole barrel of rotten ones.  In order to adequately explain my reasons for having such a low perception of our men and women in blue I would need at least another article. 

Nevertheless, whenever I do find it my onerous and distasteful task to have to deal with a member of my city’s finest (either as a suspect or a complainant,) I am always on my most obsequiously respectful behavior.  There is no more point in arguing with a man with a gun than it is to attempt to argue with a bullet fired from that gun.  I have no idea why a seemingly intelligent person like Professor Gates would give the officer a smart-ass answer like, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?”  Sorry Professor, that answer gets you an “F” in Streetsmarts 101.  Who did he think was listening, God, the press, the NAACP, his driver, the cop? 

Racist cop or not, all that response of his could possibly have gotten him was grief.  Now I could understand a statement like that if the press happened to be present.  It would at least be good street theater for the cameras and validate his point about racism in Amerika.  Absent the cameras, his statement was clearly deliberately provocative and the benighted academic was lucky it only merited handcuffs and not a taser jolt or a smart whack up the side of his head. 

Far be it from me to say that Professor Gates should have known that he got what he asked for.  I cite only a scene from a contemporary movie that examined a similar situation.  This is from a review I wrote for the film Crash a year ago.

“One of the few compelling aspects of this otherwise overrated 2005 Oscar winning movie, Crash, was the interaction between the racist LA police officer played by Mat Dillon and the black couple played by Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton.  During a routine traffic stop, a police officer who has pulled over a black couple driving an upscale vehicle is inspired, by their hostility and the verbal attacks he received, to humiliate the man and sexually assault the woman. 

I certainly don’t think it was the intention of the director, and I don’t think it is racist of me to say that, when viewing this scene, I felt the couple asked for what they got.  Of course Matt Dillon’s character was behaving consistently with that of the all too common image of the white racist cop.  It hardly takes a PhD in psychology to know that, when you confront such a character, if you want to avoid trouble, you put on your best Stepin Fetchit attitude—no matter who you are—black or white, rich or poor, guilty or innocent.”

-- Bob Boldt for the Internet Movie Data Base

Robert Boldt an editor of MWC News, is a freelance film/video producer living in Jefferson City, Missouri. He is active in local politics, worked on the Howard Dean and John Kerry campaigns and is a cofounder of The White Rose Collective. Articles by Bob Boldt at MWC News http://mwcnews.net/bob-boldt 

This_Category
Category:: Op_ed

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 841

Comments (7)
RSS comments
1. 25-07-2009 13:41
Just a thought
that will I would think that a police department would want to know who resided at a particular address, before they charge in asking questions during a possible break-in. I think that police departments have access to computer data bases which would give you the name of persons residing at a particular address. Did anyone in the Cambridge police department check computer data bases in this situation and was the investigating officer told that a prof. l. Gates lived at the address he was investigating?
Guest
2. 25-07-2009 13:54
I forgot the law
Are you kidding me??? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I can't help but notice the author of this artical is white, insensitive and seems to be condonning the officers racist behavior. I too am white but have had enough friends of color to witness first hand how different the treatment is when you are dealing with police. So I guess the prof should have bowed, looked down and said yes um boss. Maybe than the officer wouldn't have felt the need to arrest him for being in his ouw home.
Guest
bestdogcoop@aol.comNOSPAM! ">Kathleen Cullison
3. 25-07-2009 15:52
A FAIL for Dignity & Self Respect
I regret, I disagree. 
Reptilian brain or not, we all have the same neural physiology, yet we all must conform to acceptable standards of social behaviour in general and to the standards expected of our particular profession. While it is clear that much of the state policing machinery is little more than a collection of ill-trained rottweilers on too long a leash this is the tolerated state of affairs, not the accepted state and any drift towards acceptance should be strenuously resisted. 
 
The correct answer to Professor Gates’ testy question was simply “No, because I need to confirm that you are who you say you are” – end of discussion. There is no excuse for behaviour that was unacceptable even to general social standards let alone to professional standards. 
 
I find (as you have twice mentioned in your article) your willingness to put on your best Stepin Fetchit attitude or your most obsequiously respectful behavior quite distasteful and I would have to say that it earns you a clear FAIL in personal dignity and self respect. 
 
Having lived in the UK for many years this is the kind of response I would expect here where the doffing of hats, tugging of fetlocks and general arse-licking of “their betters” is quite common. This is understandable in a nation that still bears the scars of several hundred years of feudal society and subservience to authoritarian structures of a particularly brutal disposition. However, in countries like the US and Australia this is surprising and disappointing. In both countries the general masses have enjoyed, at least for a brief phase of their history, a genuine experience of relative freedom from authoritarian structures and some room for personal pride, dignity and self respect (although I notice that Hollywood is lately quite keen to remind Australians that Pride isn’t Power –I know which I would rather have). 
 
I take issue with your comments not simply because I find it distasteful but because in these times, where all the instruments of corporate media, national security and Capitalist “Democracy” are hard at work attempting to implement a 21st Century technological feudal society on a global scale, your particular attitude is just the ticket. The very idea that at such a time we should be making way for the expanded largesse of the instruments of state on the pretext of making allowance for the reptile brain is not only quite repugnant, it is also dangerous. 
 
My view is, if you own a rottweiler and it gets a little over-excited and kills someone then you are the responsible party on a manslaughter charge. Of course, Professor Gates’ experience was nothing like fatal but the rottweiler was clearly out of control and the responsible party should be fully held to account. 
 
You can grovel all you like Mr Boldt but please don’t recommend it for others, you clearly failed the relevant unit.
Guest
allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson
4. 25-07-2009 17:22
You have not Understood
However, Gates takes offence, assumes (possibly correctly, but this is irrelevant) that he is being disbelieved only because he is black and responds with a question: \"Why, because I\'m a black man in America?\". 
His question is rhetorical and provocative. Nevertheless,the officer has a professional duty not to respond unnecessarily to a minor provocation
The officer should have an array of standard responses at hand such as to simply repeat the request, yet he overreacts to the provocation and arrests Gates. 
Whether for racist reasons or not the officer has clearly acted unprofessionally and is well out of his boundaries in arresting Gates on his own property. Gates provided ID. It was clear there had been an error and Gates had every right to be there and do whatever he likes on his own property. It is the officer who has infringed in a manner that is in itself provocative. trumping up a charge of disorderly conduct is clearly a vindictive act stemming from personal spleen rather than from a professional imperative. 
 
If racism is in the picture then (which is subjective even if it seems probable the officer\'s spleen was racially motivated) it\'s another layer. The fundamental issue is failure of the officer to handle the situation in a professional manner that should be expected of police. Their authority is the state\'s not their own personal.
Guest
allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson
5. 25-07-2009 20:07
There is a time for every action
I think the appearance of disagreement between my esteemed colleague Allen L. Jasson may actually be somewhat superficial. I must confess to a bit of hyperbole when it comes to my Steppin Fetchit mode in responding to police officers.  
 
I have spent most of my adult life in Chicago where police corruption and brutality is endemic and has a tradition going back nearly to the city’s founding. According to news reports I read from my sequestered position here in mid Missouri, the future of this infamous institution appears to be unthreatened. Very early I found what worked and didn’t with Chicago’s finest. Actually a for real Steppin Fetchit attitude would be pretty well detected by the officer and might result in as bad a beating as downright hostility. My actual approach can more accurately described as calm, respectful, subservience. There is no shame in doing what you have to do to avoid a dangerous situation. You just have to decide what is really important and whether resistance serves any real purpose. I might ask Allan if he would exhibit strong resistance and hostility to a street robber with a gun. Surely such an encounter could do a lot of violence to ones dignity and self respect. I have a sliding scale in place whenever I confront illegitimate authority be it a fascist policeman or an armed robber. What you have to ask yourself is how much are you willing to put up with and what potential level of personal violence you are willing to inspire in the maintenance of dignity. If all you have to sacrifice is a certain level of delay and (in the case of the robber) the loss of a wallet and a Rolex, then I would say that such things are not worth a beating or death. If on the other extreme, a police officer orders you to disperse from the scene of police brutality then I think I would find it necessary to preserve my truest, deepest level of dignity and aggressively disobey and oppose such an officer and, at the risk of violence and even death, attempt to intervene. There is a time for every action under heaven. 
 
I think you know from my previous posts that I am not one to advocate docility in the face of tyranny of any sort. All I am arguing for here is a temporary survival strategy in a given situation. As I said Gates might have been strategically wise to take a loud, aggressive stand against what he perceived as racial profiling and bad procedure—had the press or witnesses been present. Absent that, all his attitude got him was grief for no profit. 
 
Peace, 
 
Bob
Guest
deboldt@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Bob Boldt
6. 26-07-2009 01:28
You have Misunderstood
NEITHER of the two initial comments have properly understood the situation. 
Police called to burglary, arrive to find \"burglar\" (Gates). Gates asserts he is the property owner. Officer asks for ID. 
 
So far we have a perfectly normal situation. 
 
However, Gates takes offence, assumes (possibly correctly, but this is irrelevant) that he is being disbelieved only because he is black and responds with a question: \"Why, because I\'m a black man in America?\". 
His question is rhetorical and provocative. Nevertheless,the officer has a professional duty not to respond unnecessarily to a minor provocation
The officer should have an array of standard responses at hand such as to simply repeat the request, yet he overreacts to the provocation and arrests Gates. 
Whether for racist reasons or not the officer has clearly acted unprofessionally and is well out of his boundaries in arresting Gates on his own property. Gates provided ID. It was clear there had been an error and Gates had every right to be there and do whatever he likes on his own property. It is the officer who has infringed in a manner that is in itself provocative. trumping up a charge of disorderly conduct is clearly a vindictive act stemming from personal spleen rather than from a professional imperative. 
 
If racism is in the picture then (which is subjective even if it seems probable the officer\'s spleen was racially motivated) it\'s another layer. The fundamental issue is failure of the officer to handle the situation in a professional manner that should be expected of police. Their authority is the state\'s not their own personal.
Guest
allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson
7. 26-07-2009 01:44
A Grey Area
Yes, I understand your point. There is a subjective area somewhere between assertion and aggression where we can easily take the preservation of dignity too far and extend it into unnecessary or imprudent confrontationism – what Australians call being a “smart arse”. I often have difficulty with that area. I think that faced with a mugger’s knife or gun I would quietly acquiesce and consider property a secondary consideration. But I have had a number of run-ins with police (not because I’m a criminal but because I live in a criminalised system attempts to criminalise it’s victims. I tend to think more carefully about how solid is my moral ground and if I feel certain my position is reasonable will just calmly but steadfastly assert it. 
But I take your point.
Guest
allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:

Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Bob Boldt James Crowley Henry Louis Gates Cambridge Massachusetts
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: