voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Are Police to be Feared?

Friday, July 31, 2009 | Did anyone else notice the similarities between the current flap involving the Cambridge police and a "distinguished Harvard professor" and the incident a few weeks ago involving a local political fund raiser? Both resulted in allegations of police overreaction and poor judgment in handling seemingly innocent situations, but let's back off and look at the two incidents.

Both started with trouble calls to the police by neighbors. In each case, the responding officer was met with indignation by the person contacted, and rapidly escalated into charges, in one case, of "racial profiling" and in the other, of "right-wing politics". The motives of the responding officer were impugned before the facts were clear. We even had the President, to his discredit, weigh in on the latest case.

There's a simpler, less sinister, explanation. One of the first things a police officer is taught is to take charge of a situation, and to require compliance with his or her instructions in order determine just what's going on. When the officer, knowing nothing of what to expect save for a brief summary from the dispatcher, encounters a "big shot", rattling on about his or her civil rights, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the officer asserts authority, and if an audience is present, bad things can happen.

Let's give the cops a break. Police officers aren't college professors or wealthy political activists, they're public servants trying to do a tough job, who deal daily with the worst of society. Next time you encounter a cop, how about a friendly greeting and cooperation, instead of a recitation of rights?

the prime similarity seems to be offenders (real or alleged) who refuse to comply with simple orders and rely on imagined importance ("don't you know who I am??") and victimology 101. Neither incident would've occurred, or made press coverage (Hmmmm) if the offending party (again, alleged) had behaved as the rest of us would. Cops aren't perfect, but when they are less than perfect, they can end up dead. Victim101 members? Not so much

Posted by Frank G | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 6:43 pm

Hi Frank, I agree cops are human, and have a dangerous job. If this is the case why doesn't the sheriffs department establish a dialog with Busby? I mean, put the case on the table. No, they shut down all communication. This looks bad. What are they afraid of, if their officer was just doing his job? I wasn't there, apparently just one sheriff, vodka, and old ladies(sarcasm off). You do see more then one point of view, don't you. This isn't a personal attack on you. Again, I agree cops are human, and have a dangerous job, we should never forget this. Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 10:42 am

Joe, I wasn't there either, and I certainly don't support Busby , or likely, the goals of her supporters. I doubt the Deputy arriving had any agenda either, other than getting the noise complaint resolved. The only ones with an agenda were the heckler (agenda known), the arrested hosts (agenda known) and Busby (agenda made clear by her attempt to demonize the Sheriff's Dept and get campaign $). I'd say the dialogue is over, no?

Posted by Frank G | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 12:15 pm

So, when the cop arrived was there any noise? Or did he see a bunch of wine sipping fund-raiser attending women who told him the real problem was the obscene heckler? How did he react? Did he listen, or start treating the women like criminals, demanding ID and a totally unnecessary date of birth just to assert his "control"? When these educated politically active women rightfully called him on his crap, did he freak out? The cops' wall of silence confirms it's another embarrassment for law enforcement in San Diego. Mr. Bradshaw doesn't mean to, but he's supporting this.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 8:50 pm

Fred, you have totally lost it. Now, I remember why I disagreed with you -- on several subjects (see, it isn't Alzheimer's, Officer Weiss). Why do you feel that when the truth is on your side, it is okay to just make up things? Please, stick to the facts as we know them or butt out of the conversation. No thanks, but I don't want to be on your pension reform committee, even though our goals are probably the same. You are too far out beyond Pluto for me to be associated with a Williams administration.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 9:35 am

My typographical error in the post above: The second sentence should read "Why do you feel that when the truth is NOT on your side ..."

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 11:08 am

Excellent point - give the cops a break. They aren't driving around your neighborhood looking for a reason to end up on the news. Most of them are too busy going from call to call that citizens place to dispatchers. The dispatchers try to get as much information as they can to clarify the situation for the officers, but encounter reluctance and sometimes hostility when trying to obtain descriptions from people who call the police but then "don't want to be involved." In the everyday business of law enforcement, race is a description, not an agenda.

Posted by becca | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 6:53 pm

Hi becca, Umh, they live in my neighborhood, and I think they were hoping it was me on the news. Contrary to popular belief, cops do bring their work home. I do agree with you that for law enforcement, race is a description and not an agenda. They are equal opportunists. IMO Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 11:23 am

Well, that pretty much wraps up the whole thing in a nutshell. The best thing for all concerned (or not concerned, as the case may be) with regard to three-time-loser Busby's political riot is to fuhgittaboutit. And this actually works more in three-time-loser Busby's favor, since she was gathering considerable negative publicity following her reaction and the reaction of her minions. But enough is enough. Some ill-considered Ayn-Randish libertarian comments made here notwithstanding, the lesson to be learned by all is: if you are involved in a fracas, do as the police direct you. Think something is not right? You can handle that later, AFTER the old ladies stop throwing half-full vodka glasses. Maybe three-time-loser Busby will have some advice along those lines to give to her followers at tomorrow's headquarters open house. Let's hope so. Let's also hope no liquor is served.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 6:53 pm

Well said, Mr. Bradshaw.

Posted by james georgieff | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 6:53 pm

Very good point. Cooperate with the police at the scene and allow them to do what they need to do. After the incident is resolved and/or calm, ask to speak to a supervisor or file a complaint with internal affairs if you feel the conduct was that outrageous. Fighting it out at the scene in the heat of the moment will likely only result in you spending an evening in jail facing charges of interfering with an officer or worse. This is not the time to be confrontational. As the writer stated, officers are taught to establish command presence and take control.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 8:50 pm

The supreme court has ruled against prior restraint: A person could be mentally unfit, or have an illness such as tourettes syndrome, or even be on legal drugs which cause angry outbursts (such as muscle relaxants for back pain). A person may, but is not required to, treat police with any respect whatsoever. An individual does not need to conform nor pander to police. Police are public servants, and need to treat the public with utmost respect: You cannot expect from others what you do not give first. As is always made quite clear: Police deal with some of the worst people in society, "every day', so if they are unable to maintain a calm and collect perspective while dealing with the people who pay their salaries, then they should find different jobs, because they are unfit for duty.

Posted by mang | reply to this comment
November 14, 2009 10:13 am

Tell it to your mamma, Bill. Sgt. Crowley of Cambridge, Mass., booked an outraged Professor Gates on "disorderly conduct" after Gates was accused of breaking into his own home. Charges were dismissed later. The upset hostess at the local political event was roughed up by the deputy sheriff responding to a noise complaint after she refused to reveal her age. He then called in backup, a canine unit and a helicopter. To his credit, the President weighed in on the Cambridge case because it struck such a nerve. Later Obama and the combatants talked about the issues over a beer. Contrary to your contention, I don't believe a cop's first job is to "take charge of a situation" and to "require compliance." I think cops are educable and can assess every situation coolly and make the best possible judgment about how to proceed rationally.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 9:56 pm

Hi Fed Up, The letter was a little one sided. Busby's opposition siding with sympathy towards law enforcement. Divide and conquer. Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 11:49 am

I agree that society is best served when citizens are friendly and respectful to police. Police, like the rest of us, function better when receiving positive reinforcement. But I disagree that police are doing us a favor just by doing their jobs. We taxpayers pay them for their contributions. If Professor Gates should have thanked Officer Crowley for reporting to work, then Officer Crowley should likewise have thanked Gates for helping to pay his salary. I'm afraid the chances of such a conversation was pretty close to zero in the two cases mentioned since it appears that the manner in which Officer Crowley and Deputy Marshall Abbott approached the individuals they later arrested was not conducive to a friendly exchange. There are some police, however, who do deserve an extra thank you: the ones who keep their emotions out of their decisions.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
July 31, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Bill, I don't know all the facts about these two incidents, I wasn't there. These days, you have to be there. Nothing is ever what the parties involved say it is. It takes two. Got kids? As far as fearing the police? This is their job, this is what they do. I know when I do something often enough, I get better and better at it. Worst of society? Your words, not mine. We are all human beings...........rig Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 5:35 am

Thanks Bill.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 7:41 am

What happened in San Diego and Cambridge are less about racial profiliing and right-wing conspiracies then they are about a gap between police and citizens. Does the average person know their rights when being stopped by police? I'm not sure they do. I know police officers have a tough job and can never be certain what they are walking into on a call, but they have a higher duty to de-escalate a tricky situation precisely because we give them guns and handcuffs. The officer in the Cambridge situation had no reason to arrest Gates no matter what a jerk he was being. It's not a crime to be rude to police. The San Diego case is a little trickier because of the crowd of people. But I make no apologies for second guessing police in these situations. It's the only way to deter abuse of authority.

Posted by Catherine | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 7:51 am

Where did you get your vast knowledge of police procedure, Catherine? You seem to have an answer for it all. No reason to arrest Gates? Really? Not a crime to be rude to an officer? Ever hear of interfering with a police officer?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 9:44 am

Hi Edgar, You didn't offer any knowledge either, just a bunch of question marks. Are you keeping it a secret? Not very good for your case. Edgar Edgar Edgar Would someone with some knowledge of police survival please respond. Seriously, I think police aren't as concerned about public perceptions as they have a pretty good PR machine. It's their pay and benefits, and the loss of such. If I were a cop, I wouldn't want to go backwards either. The police will always make more than the average joe.

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 12:25 pm

If you're a cop and rudeness interferes with your duty, you need a thicker skin. Deal.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 4:13 pm

It is the public servants known as "police" who need to restrain themselves, not the citizens. I'm sorry for pointing out facts, but the supreme court has already ruled AGAINST prior restraint: an individual, in a free country, is free to act any way they want and can not be "required" to act any particular way. A person could be on medication, have a mental illness, or just be having a bad day. You cannot reasonably expect anyone (especially someone who is not guilty of anything whatsoever) to treat anyone -including police- any particular way, except the way that they "feel" at the moment, and if they have done nothing wrong -you- are harassing them. If a Police Officer can't handle dealing with "normal" people on a daily basis, then they need to see a shrink, or get another job.

Posted by mang | reply to this comment
November 14, 2009 10:24 am

I agree with the issue of taking charge of situation, and I agree (reluctantly) that we (I) should greet officer politely, but what about the office using a little courtesy such as__ I am a "Mr); not a "John" trying to create a super sweet moment. We are supposed to address the officer as "Officer, Sergeant, SIr"__not "Hey man, cop". I think tha the President should have stayed out of this situation, but I applaud him for having the guts to try something different and I am glad that no apologies were offered or suggested. Last word___I don't need some cop's snotty "Have a nice day", even if I did not commit a crime. It is nothing less than being sarcastic, maybe hoping for a really loud response that will result in more trouble.

Posted by JOhn S. Mournian (smokescreen) | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 8:07 am

This is the problem with Officer Weiss's endless stream of anti-civilian and anti-taxpayer invective. It causes others to see all police officers in this light and results in equally sour and equally wrong viewpoints such as Mr. Mournian's. The man Gates was simply wrong (as were the attack-dog women in the three-time-loser Busby riot). Have you read the police report? Gates was waaay out of line. In situations like this, do as the officer says. If there is anything inappropriate, that can be settled at a later date, when everyone is presumably rational once again. We pay the police to maintain the peace and to protect us. Let them do their jobs.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 9:31 am

As Ronald Regan would have said once more:"There you go again! " Edgar, thanks for the plug! I agree of course with all of your post with exception to your first two sentences.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 12:20 pm

That isn't helping me, Ron.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 4:54 pm

The problem is that police don't get who they're working for. They work for us and owe us as much courtesy as they offer their own, as much courtesy as they offer the chief of police and the mayor. We pay their salaries. They also need to keep in mind that they're coming into my neighborhood, not theirs. These cops that try to take ownership of the streets and the neighborhood need to recognize that they are outsiders and that the best way to help the residents that pay the city's bills is to offer deference and ask them what they need or how they can help, not jump into other peoples' business demanding ID and this and that. It's counterproductive to come into a neighborhood acting all big and bad; it just reinforces the stereotype that the police come by to hassle, rather than help.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 8:13 am

I usually agree with you on just about all your comments, whatever the subject, Robert, but not this time. You went over the top here. Don't you think the police are taught, trained repeatedly and rated for compliance with just what you are saying? Of course they are. Unfortunately, as I said above, it takes just a few vocal, bitter and very much anti-taxpayer cops to give all our police a bad name. I wish that vocal minority would can it!

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 9:36 am

Edgar you make me laugh. Of all those that are vocal and bitter, I would say you are definately on the top of the heap. Again Edgar, age can make one bitter as it has you. Most of your posts are error free and even have validity, but your bitterness is taking over and will age you even quicker! Hang in there though! VOSD wouldn't be the same without your "unintentional" humor!

Posted by ron weiss | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 12:25 pm

Your bitterness is so acerbic, Ron Weiss, you could bottle it, sell it as an industrial-strength rust remover and make a fortune. Where else but in city service could an employee get away with such nasty comments about and directed to his employers, the taxpaying citizens of this beautiful but pitifully run city no less? Do something useful to redirect that anger that is eating away at you -- volunteer work, a hobby, anything -- or you won't live to see retirement.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 9:02 am

I wouldn't know how good the San Diego police force is in general, Edgar: I never see them. All they do in my neighborhood is breeze by in their patrol cars. What ever happened to foot patrols? What ever happened to engaging the public? I've probably spoken to more employees of the city's water department as part of their drought outreach in the past 10 weeks than I have spoken to SD's cops in the past year.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 4:20 pm

Sounds like you need to upgrade your living situation. I never see the police in my neighborhood, either. That's just the way I and my neighbors like it. We tend to look with disfavor on breaking and entering, car theft, drugs, and all the other kinds of things that would tend to bring Officer Weiss and his colleagues into the area.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 4:59 pm

I am far from bitter Edgar. I love serving the public. Hey Robert, I am on foot patrol quite often in Ocean Beach. All of the business owners know me and appreciate the visibility of the police and the direct contact with us. I agree there should be more but until we get more than 1.2 cops per thousand, it isn't gonna happen. You see everyone wants more but is unwilling to pay for it. If raising taxes is the answer, I don't know. If getting the spending under control and re-direct our priorities will solve the financial crisis this City is in, fantastic. Get smarter people elected, Edgar, I will live to be a very old man. I love life, and I don't sweat the small stuff. This back and forth bantering is a hoot!

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 5:51 pm

Well, Officer Weiss, try to concentrate really hard and do sweat some of the small stuff -- at least enough to insert your replies to the correct comment. It wasn't until I reached the end of this particular comment that I saw the writer was intrepid Officer Weiss and not Ayn Rand wannabe Robert. Before I saw it was you, all I could think was "Don't tell me this guy is now going to claim to be a cop after all the anti-authority drivel he has spilled over these pages." Robert, shouldn't you be home watching Glen Beck and thinking of ways to overthrow the establishment? Something terrible must have happened to you in grammar school.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 10:06 pm

My time is limited Edgar. I am raising a family and I still am employed, at least for the time being. I thought it quite appropriate to address you as well as Robert since you were in an earth shattering and world saving discussion with him. With all the time on your hands Edgar, I am sure you will come up with a solution, implement it and take full credit for it! I can't wait to hear what that solution might be. Maybe we can all come and move to your neighborhood where crime is so low and police are not visible. Seriously though Edgar, I really do enjoy your posts and at least they make more sense than most of the others

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 8:50 am

Robert you need to get in touch with reality. Foot Patrols? Officers can;t even keep up with the calls for service, let alone have time to get out and do foot patrols. Its not uncommon for many calls to hold for hours waiting for an officer to respond. Report calls can wait for days and even then is taken over the telephone. SDPD is down nearly 300 officers and its going to get worse. There was a time when I worked patrol and knew all of the business owners and community leaders on my beat. In fact it was an expectation. Unfortunately those days are long gone.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 8:49 am

Hey there, Edgar. The Robert who posted above is different than me, the Robert whose views -- mine -- you normally agree with, and I with you. As with you, I'm not anti-law enforcement, and sure as hell not pro-Busby. Anyway, I rarely post on here anymore, like I used to. I just got sick and tired of VOSD not posting my comments, and not publishing my letters, which I would put great effort into in terms of substance, relevance and fairness. I still check into VOSD maybe once a week, as I am today, to see if there's anything worthwhile. But Lewis and Donohue essentially drove me away from their "publication" with their heavyhanded censorship and lack of respect for my opinions. That's okay, there are plenty of other sources for news and opinion if VOSD wants to drive their readers away.

Posted by Robert the First | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 7:39 pm

So I guess when an Officer sees a burglary in progress in your neighborhood, they should not do anything about it because that is not the neighborhood they live in. Or what if you commit a crime, should the Officer not arest you because it is your neighborhood and you pay their salary. The officers try to take control of the situation because they do not know who they are dealing with. The goal of every Officer is simply to make it home at the end of their shift. They demanded ID because they needed it for their investigation. If it looked like someone broke into your house, would you want the police to ask for ID or just simply take that person's word that they live in your house?

Posted by Dawg53 | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 8:36 am

Hi, Both these cases involved first encounters by police. Maybe police should be given the benefit of doubt. Seals are political, cops don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole. Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 9:03 am

How did the seals get in this????

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 9:41 am

The rules say I can interject any object into the equation at any moment deemed necessary to distract you from reality....Edgar.... Police and politics should not be used in the same sentence.

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 1:31 pm

I've read enough of your sudden comments to realize that reality appears to be in short supply in your cannon of social commentary. When you care enough to -- well, you know -- actually make a point, come back and share with us. So far, all I get out of your writing is aimless ramblings.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 9:09 am

Hi, I think maybe this letter was politically motivated. It's not a surprise to me who holds the power here in San Diego. I do. It seems that this thread is a way for the apposing sides to communicate with each other, which they desperately want to do. Joe

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 10:13 am

Wrong adverb there, Joe. I'm not "desperate" to do anything. I doubt many of the other correspondents here are desperately wanting to communicate with one another either. Each of your comments is another refrain of "We are the world," but it is hard to understand what your point is.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 7:13 pm

I couldn't disagree more with those who say that the job of police is to "serve" and that their first priority is to be courteous to those they serve. This isn't Mayberry. When I first heard of the Cambridge incident, I put myself in Gates' shoes. If I break into my own house and the cops show up and explain that there has been a report of a possible burglary in progress, my first response is to identify myself to the officer and be THANKFUL that: 1) my neighbors were watching out for my house and 2) that the police actually showed up quickly. As a reasonable person, I have NO expectation that the police know who I am. Therefore, it is my responsibility to identify myself. The police have essential powers to "take control." That's what "law enforcement" means.

Posted by SDGal | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 10:31 am

SDGAL, shame on you for having common sense! :)

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 12:34 pm

Yes, I agree, talking down to the police is childish. They're seems to be more facts about the Gates case. Sheriff's Dept., not a peep. weird

Posted by Joe Vargo | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 1:10 pm

So very right you are, SDGal. Moreover, consider those who have alarm systems and accidentally set it off. Usually, this is rectified by a simple call to the security service, stating who you are and what your code word is. But, one time I set my alarm off accidentally and, because the automatic dialer on the alarm had been activated and a call to the service automatically sent, I couldn't call out on my telephone. The police were called and, once called, could not be recalled. The result was I waited for their arrival, sitting on the front steps, driver's license in hand. I did everything they said, answered their questions and they left with a "thank you, sir. Sorry for the trouble." The Boy President didn't have to get involved and it didn't become a national "teachable moment."

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 3:50 pm

Taking control does not mean a demand for courtesy. From what I understand, there were no third-party, non-police observers at Gates' house when he was arrested, so it's not clear what really happened. Here's what I do know, though -- the DA dismissed the charge against Gates filed by the arresting officer. What does that tell you? It tells me that the officer's charge was not motivated by the law, but by the officer's opinion that Gates was out of line. If Gates committed the act for which he was arrested, the charges would have gone somewhere. The conclusion is obvious, frankly.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 4:15 pm

Well, then, how did they get those photographs of Gates screaming at the officer with his mouth open a full foot wide? Of course the charges were dismissed. The Boy President interjected himself -- without cause or authority whatsoever. Moreover, dismissing the charges is usually what happens in a situation like this, i.e., where no one has really committed a crime or, if one has been committed, it is minor and arose only because of the heated situation. After some time has passed, tempers have cooled and all parties realize that maybe, just maybe, they may have been a teensy bit out of line and it would be better to forget about it and get on with the more important matters of the valley of tears that passes for most people's lives.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 5:07 pm

Just for the record...the fact that charges were later dismissed has nothing to do with whether or not they were valid. The D.A.'s office drope legitimate charges everyday in San Diego (and elsewhere, I'm sure) because a case has no "jury appeal". I have nearly 25 years in law enforcement and I see it happen every day.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 7:25 am

Excellent for you! I wouldn't open the door unless they had a warrant: otherwise, quit harassing me! The reason that charges were dropped in these cases was- as usual- the police, being completely ignorant of the laws which they are supposedly being paid to enforce, somehow feel entitled to mistreat and harass average citizens based upon incorrect assumptions about their alleged "power" over the citizenry of this country. Police are like vampires: An officer cannot come into your house without being invited or having a warrant. If you are carrying illegal drugs, or have a hidden weapon, then it is probably best to kiss their butt so they leave you alone, but if you are not guilty of ANYTHING, be yourself and then sue them for breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Posted by mang | reply to this comment
November 14, 2009 11:15 am

On balance, it's probably wise to be civil to the cops---and keep close eye on all they do. When they misbehave, there should be some sort of Hammer of God to whip 'em back into line, pronto. Here's why: They are the only segment of society that is A) Armed B) Allowed to act directly, authoritatively and immediately C) Have a bureaucratic regime weighted in their favor in any overview procedure. If you don't believe that statement, you can ask yourself how many citizens would have walked if they had shot an eight year old in the knee during a road rage incident, like SDPD Officer White did recently. This is one example of city government valuing Them over Us. This isn't how its supposed to work and when it works this way, every element of government ought to be questioned----and replaced with something more respectful.

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 11:38 am

Bill Bradshaw: Very well put.

Posted by PETER DIRENZA | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 2:02 pm

"Feared" and respected are such different things. Personally I would not argue with a person (polite or otherwise) who has a gun, a badge, and possibly a police dog for backup. It is never wise to poke at a tiger which is what Gates did. I think Sgt. Crowley was within his rights, He tried to diffuse the situation but could not. At least he has the class and courage to respond with a statement on national television while Mr. PhD remains silent. Despite all the current incessant and biased rhetoric about DROP by a uniformed officer on this blog, I will side with Sgt. Crowley in this matter. Who needs more unrest in a world about to implode ? Gates should take a lesson in common sense and manners.

Posted by grasca | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 2:52 pm

Persistent and informed ( especially if you compare them to your radical comments) would be a more accurate description!

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 8, 2009 9:41 am

The Gates case, and our local one have in common the arrogance of the elite. Of course, racism was also involved in the Gates case. In both, officers are responding to routine calls, and trying to take care of business. Part of that business is finding out who the heck you are talking to, and confirming their identity if its necessary. In both cases, the tensions were escalated dramatically by arrogant social elites who think they are above the law. With Gates, you have to add his OBVIOUS hatred of white people to the facts that escalated things. Obama immediately siding with his other racist friend (Ref to J. Wright) didn't help much. The SDSO deputy is owed an apology from Busby and her rich friends. The Cambridge sergeant is owed one by the seething racist Gates and the president himself.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 4:21 pm

Above what law exactly? Gates wasn't breaking the law. He was suspected of breaking into his own house, but he never broke any law at all! There is no law against talking back to the cops. Ever heard of the First Amendment?

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 8:29 pm

Robert, no matter how much we agree on other issues, we are polarized on this issue of the police. As I noted above, interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties is a violation of law. It most certainly is not covered by the First Amendment. The next time you see some loser sitting along the highway with his hands behind his back and the police are preparing a report, jump out, run over and start telling the police your theories of how they should be acting. See what happens to you. As you are led off to jail, following the failure of your appeal of your conviction, you can explain those theories to the officers accompanying you.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 9:18 am

Me jumping out of my car on the highway to figure out what's going on with a perfect stranger's arrest is none of my business and I have no right to interfere. I'd volunteer to put the handcuffs on myself if that occurred. However, if the police are trying to curb my rights as I know them, you're damn right I'm going to tell them so. Why should I make it easy for them to be thugs? If they get no resistance for doing the wrong thing and abusing their power, they can do whatever they want. Two words: Johannes Mehserle.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 7:56 pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If rudeness interferes with a policeman's job, he needs a thicker skin. It's seldom a day that someone isn't rude to me, but you don't see me flying off the handle trying to put them in their place so that I can maintain control.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 7:57 pm

Maybe you should look to yourself for the answer. Yes, I get rude remarks directed to me all the time on this site (in contravention of the rules, which seem to apply only to me and no one else). But, that is my nom de plume. In person, I almost never have people act rudely to me. Maybe it is something in your demeanor.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 4:36 pm

Hehehe!!! Again, Edgar, two different Roberts here. See my response to you a few of your comments back. The touchy-feely Robert who is jousting with you in this string is not me, the Robert who used to post on here and engage with you on the issues of the day. Best to you, Edgar.

Posted by Robert the First | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 8:02 pm

My apologies, Robert I. All the more reason for Voice to enforce mandatory registration of participants. I have been burned several times by someone posting under my name. I am glad to know you really are a common sense type of person, Robert I.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 7, 2009 4:14 pm

I agree totally, D. Both apologies are due. Unfortunately, none will be forthcoming.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 9:44 pm

I guess we can safely say that all respondents here are white and thus believe the po-lice are their friends. We middle class voice readers rightly tell our children that cops are community helpers. We never feel compelled to warn them about how to behave if they ever are stopped by the police. Unfortunately, that is not true for African-Americans of any class, as the President himself explained. Probably every black person in this country has had a negative or humiliating encounter with police over a lifetime. True stories are legion about being stopped (for nothing except skin color) while driving, about black homes mistakenly invaded in police raids, about police shootings of black detainees or use of excessive force. American police are armed and powerful and therefore obliged to defuse incendiary situations by using intelligence, restraint and good human relations wherever necessary -- no exceptions, no excuses,

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 8:41 pm

"American police are armed and powerful and therefore obliged to defuse incendiary situations by using intelligence, restraint and good human relations wherever necessary -- no exceptions, no excuses" I could not have said it any better myself. These guys make more than enough money to swallow their pride. Like I said in a previous post, the cops need to understand who they work for: us.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 8:34 pm

Mr. Bradshaw, you're wrong on this one. The law guarantees us the absolute right to question public officials. There is NO law requiring deference to public officials. When any officer enters your house for a bogus noise complaint and ends up arresting you, then it's pretty clear the officer has abused his authority. His brittle feelings are NOT reason enough to arrest anyone who disses him. He escalated the situation instead of defusing it. Has he been tested for steroid abuse after showing such poor judgement? That should be standard procedure. Instead, we get excuses. Shameful.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 1, 2009 10:36 pm

Well, Fred Williams, you just go right ahead with that kind of illogical thinking. Your obvious hatred of authority may be your undoing someday. Better pray that the occasion never arises. Remember, you won't be having The Boy President jumping to your defense on national TV or being willing to stick his size 13s in his own mouth for your benefit. I don't plan on ever doing anything to cause a confrontation with the police, but you never know how things will turn out. If I am confronted by police, I will do anything they tell me.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 5:21 pm

Mr. Williams seems to be the most qualified representative of "the law" on this board! Thanks for your sensibility Mr. Williams, as it is a trait that is rare in Americans anymore...Especially among those paid to "protect and serve". Let's analyze who has the most "illogical thinking"! 1- The supreme court has already ruled against prior restraint: a free citizen can not be compelled to alter his or her demeanor for anyone, including police. 2- Noone needs to answer any questions from the police, or allow them to detain you unless they place you under under arrest, and then you must be read you rights and be allowed to speak with a lawyer FIRST, or just claim the fifth amendment and not say anything. Darn Laws: The Police should learn them!

Posted by mang | reply to this comment
November 14, 2009 10:47 am

What is pretty clear is that you are not a lawyer, Mr. Williams. Your fourth sentence substantiates that. Leave the legal pronouncements to lawyers. You can still rant and rave on the libertarian subjects near and dear to your heart. Just don't try to apply them to situations you are not qualified to assess.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 9:38 pm

Edgar, my friend...which law says that you can be arrested for being rude to a cop? Not obstructing an investigation, just asking in an annoying way for his name and badge number? Is that illegal? Do you care more for protecting cops' tender feelings, or the first amendment? As long as it's not "fighting words" the courts have ruled the cops are NOT justified in arresting you. Look it up, buddy. I support law enforcement, not cowering in fear at authority when you've done nothing wrong and the cop is acting like a bully in your own home.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 8:46 pm

Refusing to answer a cop's question that he is authorized to ask in the course of his investigation = interference with the police. Just because Fred Williams thinks it shouldn't be authorized isn't enough. Statutes and the courts say otherwise.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 9:49 am

Any law that you would punish you for not answering a question a cop asks you would be unconstitutional. Ever heard of Maranda Rights? As in, "You have the right to remain silent." I have no obligation to assist the cops in their investigation of me. Ever heard of the 5th amendment? We can argue this out here to whatever end we want, but the evidence for arresting Gates was baloney and you know it. It's great that your pro-cop, but I'm pro-citizen. And by the way, this is why one should be leary of the cops; enjoy this one: link

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 3:39 pm

There you go again, Robert. You and your Libertarian friends need to realize that you should not be making legal assessments unless you are in fact, well you know, a lawyer. Miranda Rights? That has nothing to do with asking the age of some old bitty at a fund raiser for three-time-loser Busby. Do you know when the police must Mirandize? Do you know who the police must Mirandize? Evidently not or you wouldn't be making these bonehead statements. Use arguments that are pertinent to the discussion at hand. The evidence for arresting Gates was not baloney. The evidence for The Boy President to interject himself where he wasn't needed, didn't belong and had no authority was pure unadulterated baloney -- I mean BS.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 4:51 pm

By the way, I agree that the President "acted stupidly" injecting himself and the office into this whole mess.

Posted by thom | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 11:38 am

BS= Baloney Slices. I like it. Tell me , do I have it right that, in order to have the right to remain silent as in Miranda, one has to be under arrest? Also which is the correct interpretation: are you using "Boy" as a racial epithet or just a comment on the President's relative age?

Posted by thom | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 11:38 am

I've been wondering the same thing, Thom.

Posted by Kate | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 5:13 pm

Right said Fred! What say you Ed?

Posted by thom | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 10:30 am

Mr. Bradshaw stated his position well. I agree with him. Mr. Fred Williams,, however, could use some first hand experience in some police contact as a "ride along" with a local agency. I think that the eight hours spent with a local cop would be a very enlightening experience. Maybe he can see that a traffic stop is a potentially life threatening situation and how dangerous and heartbreaking a domestic violence call can be. Walk a mile in a cop's shoes and perhaps Mr. Wiliams can understand why we civilians need to show some deference and respect for law enforcement.

Posted by Kelly Donivan | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 4:58 pm

As a veteran and former member of the Crime Commission, I respect and appreciate police. You do NOT have to kowtow to ANYONE in America, especially in your own home. It's desirable to cooperate and be nice to cops, but it is NOT legally required and you CANNOT be arrested for merely being rude. Yet cops routinely ignore the law and arrest people for exactly this reason. Do you really want to live in a police state? Visit a formerly communist country and learn some history. Unquestioning deference to abusive authority is deadly to democracy.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 8:38 pm

We know the cops face danger daily, Ms. Donivan, and we are grateful for their commitment and courage. And in this democracy we also require our (armed) police to demonstrate professionalism and respect to every civilian and to be trained to respond rationally and effectively to any situation.That these requirements are sometimes left in the ditch (as in the North County and Cambridge, Mass., incidents) doesn't mean they are not the sterling standard for police behavior.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
August 4, 2009 10:13 am

The last few years the San Diego Police Officers are placed in the hallways of our City Hall for the protection of our Officials. The only problem with having these men just standing around with nothing to do is these men now think of themselves as another layer of our government. A few years ago I told Tony Atkins that CCDC was building too many condos. I looked up and Tony pointed to me and one of these cops started following me. My constant theme at these meetings was San Diego could not spend all of its time and resources on building these new condos. Now here we are three years later and the vast majority of these condos are empty. The rest of these condos never were finished being built. These cops are still following me to this day. POLICE STATE

Posted by Milly | reply to this comment
August 2, 2009 6:11 pm

# Enroll in the District Attorney’s Citizens Academy and you’ll learn cops are trained to take control. Sometimes their actions are flawed. Other times not. Sure submitting to police is frightening and humiliating for non-members of the criminal class. But one need not acquiesce out of respect, self-preservation works too. # Unlike Cambridge, the San Diego default mode is to defend law enforcement and blame the victim. This keeps life orderly, reduces anxiety and ensures no one thinks much; which is one reason people live here. The results are Cambridge 911 tapes released in 5 days, while Busby’s are still in hiding, several weeks on. Cops learn what they can get away with. # We should all be a little afraid of authority and turn that fear into public action ensuring those in power do not abuse us.

Posted by Bob | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 10:21 am

I was an editor for years and present at many events where news reports weren't supported by facts. Other events were open to interpretation; I disagreed with the sound bytes. In this dialogue, many are interested in representing their points of view. Not having been there, they offer theories about arrogance by the elite, bad behavior by the police, etc. I can only offer my extensive personal experience--I have seem police behave really well in many instances, good in most, incredibly badly in some. My experience is that bad behavior is usually against the poor and powerless; when privileged people get bad behavior, they tend to behave badly. They believe the police are their friends and are supposed to persecute the underclass, not them. Most of you have no idea how the underclass is treated. They are like the ones here placing all blame on the underclass--until it happens them.

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
August 3, 2009 1:27 pm

Now that I've scrolled through some 80 responses to my letter, most of which have nothing to do with what I said, I stand by my original comments. I wasn't at either scene and neither were any of the barracks lawyers pontificating about what happened and what the cops allegedly did wrong. But now that the "beer summit" has come and gone, probably costing the tax payers ten grand or so, I'll say it one more time: Next time you encounter a cop, how about being polite and cooperative? No, you don't have to kneel, kiss a ring, surrender your First Amendment rights or demean yourself in any way; you don't even have to address the cop as sir, just be cooperative. Life is too short to make everything into a contest.

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
August 9, 2009 12:07 pm

Words for Robert (the lefty one) and Fed Williams to heed -- or ignore at their own peril. Thanks Mr. Bradshaw.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 9, 2009 6:52 pm

Are Police to be Feared?

By Bill Bradshaw, Mission Beach