Welcome to HickoryRecord.com. Skip directly to: our Keyword Search, Section Navigation, Content.

HickoryRecord.com - Hickory Daily Record

HomeNewsEntertainmentSportsLifestylesOpinionCommunityWeather Online Tools Jobs | Real Estate | Shopping | Classified

President and I can't testify to facts in Cambridge

By Larry Clark | Hickory Daily Record

Published: July 25, 2009

President Obama is inclined to give his friend the benefit of the doubt.

I am disposed to do so with the police officer.

What we — the president and I — should remember is that neither of us have all the facts in the Cambridge incident, and we hold the professions of professor and law officer to higher standards of conduct.

There seems to have been a breakdown of conduct on both sides, but we don't know for sure.

What we do know is that both parties were under duress.

The cop was responding to a 911 burglary report. According to some reports, the home of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. already had been the target of a break-in while Gates was away on a trip.

There were signs of forced entry. Apparently, Gates misplaced his keys and he and a person identified initially as his driver pushed their way into the house. That in itself would be unnerving to the professor or any homeowner.

Then the police show up.

Sgt. James Crowley did not know Gates. Here is where standard police procedure in many jurisdictions enters the picture. As a one-time police-beat reporter, this is drawn from my experience.

Cop doesn't know if person at the door is homeowner. Homeowner doesn't have photo ID at hand and must go into interior of house to obtain.

Officer follows the person. If the person is the homeowner, the issue can be quickly resolved. If the person is an intruder, the officer cannot let him out of his sight.

There is a risk of escape — with loot — or an armed standoff.

Other officers arrive. The department doesn't want to inform the homeowner his house was burgled twice while he was gone.

So far, so good, but here is where the Cambridge incident gets murky.

Something seems to have happened to inflame the situation. It ended with the professor being handcuffed and taken to jail. At the scene were white and black cops.

That a university professor would be cuffed and hauled off to the police station is cause for scrutiny and even alarm.

But we don't know if the officers were satisfied of Gates' identity, if Crowley said or did something he shouldn't, or if Gates said or did something he shouldn't.

The two versions of the incident are contradictory.

I can put myself in Gates' position. If I'm working in the yard or the woods, I probably will not have an ID of any kind with me.

If the law shows up for whatever reason, the officers are not likely to know me. If they're responding to a possible crime or looking for a suspect and canvassing the neighborhood, they're going to ask me for an ID.

I'll have to go into the house to get one. In that case, I fully expect one or more officers to follow me wherever I have to go to get the ID. It's their job. They're protecting themselves and me.

I also expect courtesy. I know I must act accordingly. They cannot take me at my word. That's a dangerous move.

I will not tolerate abusive language and roughneck tactics, however.

Even the slightest breakdown of conduct can be provocative.

I know this to be true from spending a lot of time with officers and suspects. It is true that some of the most dangerous people appear to be the most thoroughly normal.

If there is a breakdown, and I am hauled off to jail, I will be handcuffed. Many jurisdictions have an unbreakable rule that if an officer is compelled to take someone into custody, the person must be handcuffed. No exceptions.

Too many cops and innocent bystanders have been subject to violence from seemingly meek people who were simply told to come along and not restrained.

All too often, a heated situation cannot be diffused with words alone.

That being said, and recognizing the probable duress of professor and cop, we must question why a routine response to a possible break-in escalated to the professor's arrest and charges of racism.

I cannot say who is right. Neither can the president. We cannot predict the conduct of our friends and acquaintances under all circumstances. It's folly to do so, although we naturally gravitate toward those we like and respect.

Many people are coming to the defense of Gates and Crowley. Critics say Gates should have been glad someone was looking after his home, or Crowley should have recognized the man he confronted had nothing to hide.

The incident will be cussed and discussed, and a satisfactory conclusion may be impossible.

Racism exists, no doubt. Racial origin, religion, economic status and numerous other elements are subject to bias — not just in America, but everywhere.

Is the Cambridge incident an example of racism? It depends on who you ask, and only Gates and Crowley know for sure.

We cannot escape the premise, however, that we hold the professor and the officer to the highest standards of comportment, as we should.

That's one reason why this is so troubling.

We should not allow the incident to polarize the community or the nation, but use it as a learning experience and go forward.

And, as much as we like to think our judgment is flawless, the president and I cannot testify to the facts.

We can encourage respect and restraint in such confrontations, even if provoked, with the footnote that we have a decision to make if it we conclude beyond doubt that we are at risk.

Larry Clark is a Record staff writer. Reach him at lclark@hickoryrecord.com.