Gatesgate: A Legal Hypothetical
Elie here. On Wednesday, I took a closer look at the woman who called the Cambridge police on Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. I wondered if she could be held liable under a good Samaritan statute, and asked if we should hold good Samaritans to a higher standard.
Most readers felt that the woman was beyond reproach. She saw “two black males with backpacks” attempting to enter a house, and most people — including Professor Gates and President Obama — felt she acted appropriately when she called the police.
Legal Blog Watch has published a great analysis suggesting that Gates’s arrest was unwarranted. Even if you take the police officer’s word about what happened inside the house, it was unlikely that a prosecution against Gates for disorderly conduct could have survived (at least based on the evidence we have now; there are rumors of tapes).
I understand that I am hanging far out on a thin limb, but I remain far from convinced that the woman acted appropriately. I do think, hypothetically, that there is a cognizable legal claim Professor Gates could have against the woman who turned him in. Here is the applicable Massachusetts “good Samaritan” statute:
Chapter 258C: Section 13. “Good Samaritans”; liabilitySection 13. No person who, in good faith, provides or obtains, or attempts to provide or obtain, assistance for a victim of a crime as defined in section one, shall be liable in a civil suit for damages as a result of any acts or omissions in providing or obtaining, or attempting to provide or obtain, such assistance unless such acts or omissions constitute willful, wanton or reckless conduct.
On Wednesday, I suggested that the standard for liability was reasonableness, as opposed to “willful, wanton or reckless conduct.” Obviously, a recklessness standard is much more difficult to prove.
But after the jump, I make my case. And then Mr. David Lat slaps me upside the head makes his case … that I need to be Rule 11-ed right back to Tolerance 101.
ELIE’S ARGUMENT
Let’s start with the easiest arguments, Gates was the victim and he suffered damages. The Cabbed Caller was attempting to help Gates, by protecting his house from a possible break-in, yet through her efforts Gates suffered more harm. Arguably the reputational and psychological damages Gates suffered far outstripped the financial damages he would have suffered had there been an actual break in.
Now, yes, I understand that good Samaritan laws have been erected as a shield to protect citizens who try to help from overly litigious victims. But that doesn’t mean that they’ve completely eviscerated the opportunity for victims to get a judgment against a person who was trying to help, but caused more harm than good.
Okay, I can hear all of you screaming about the “intervening cause” of the police officers. Even people sympathetic to Gates believe that if anybody is liable, it is the cops, not the Cabbed Caller.
But that’s how I get to the Cabbed Caller’s recklessness in calling the police in the first place. It’s not intervening if you could reasonably foresee the actions that would result from your conduct. Could the Cabbed Caller have reasonably foreseen that calling the cops would lead to the arrest of whomever was in the house? I say yes. Where there are other actions that a reasonable person could have taken instead of bringing in the shock troops? I say yes.
Was it therefore reckless to call the cops in the first place? Well, for that I’d want to depose the witness. I’d want to know if she had any reason, at all, to believe that the cops would behave appropriately. And then I’d want to know if she had any reason, at all, to believe that the cops would behave appropriately when confronted by “two black men, with backpacks.”
Because if there is willful and wanton recklessness here, it rests with this person’s belief that the police would behave appropriately towards a black man in a Cambridge suburb after being “tipped” that there was a B&E in progress. I know that point angers people of all races — especially perhaps those who think we are just a few steps away from living in a happy racial utopia where justice is truly blind.
But justice is not blind, not even close, and at some point it becomes aggressively dangerous to pretend that it is. The Cabbed Caller knows, or should have known, that the police would overreact to the situation she presented them with. It was incumbent upon her to take her head out of the sand and engage with the world as it is, not as she would like it to be.
Her failure to do so, her decision to put her faith in the Cambridge police when there were other options at her disposal, constitutes recklessness. At least, that’s the argument.
Now, even though I don’t have ready access to case law — Above the Law is still waiting for its free Lexis and Westlaw passwords — I’m pretty sure that no court has ever held a person liable for calling the cops. The societal incentive for reporting crime probably outweighs the incentive to protect black people from police harassment. But just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. The laws are already there, and we are making progress.
Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood.
LAT’S RESPONSE
Elie, I don’t mean to be rude, but I am deeply frustrated. Your “Good Samaritan” argument is, quite frankly, ridiculous and embarrassing. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify that, although it appeared on the site that I founded, I do not endorse it in any way, shape or form.
I am all in favor of occasionally “baiting” the readers — I do it a lot myself — but let’s do so intelligently. Lawyers — i.e., our readers — hate it when legal concepts are abused or used imprecisely (which is more often your problem).
With respect to this “Good Samaritan” analysis, however, we’re looking at a case of outright abuse, not mere imprecision. You’ve already been thoroughly spanked by the commenters, but I’m happy to add a few whacks of my own.
I don’t know where to begin — your analysis is even more trippy than the most whacked-out legal theories I was served up by professors at Yale Law School — but here are a few observations:
1. Good Samaritan laws are shields, not swords.
You write: “Now, yes, I understand that good Samaritan laws have been erected as a shield to protect citizens who try to help from overly litigious victims.”
You preemptively acknowledge a number of the arguments against your position, which is a clever rhetorical move. But to acknowledge an argument is not to refute it, and this is a perfect example.
Maybe some judicious use of capitalization will convey my point. Good Samaritan laws, including the Massachusetts statute you cite above, are SHIELDS, NOT SWORDS. They do not give rise to liability or causes of action, which is why — contrary to your suggestion — it is IMPOSSIBLE to find someone “liable under a good Samaritan statute.” You might find someone not entitled to the immunity from civil suit that a GS law offers, but the GS law itself does NOT establish liability.
If you want to question the conduct of the woman as an ethical or moral matter, and argue that “the Good Samaritan here wasn’t that good” (a la the Kaye Scholer Mom case), then fine. But don’t drop the L-bomb — i.e., bring in the law, legal concepts, and terms of art — unless you have a solid basis for doing so. I challenge you to find a case in any U.S. jurisdiction in which someone who placed a call to the police or 911 got in trouble under a Good Samaritan law because the police then acted inappropriately.
(You preemptively acknowledge, supra, your belief that “no court has ever held a person liable for calling the cops. The societal incentive for reporting crime probably outweighs the incentive to protect black people from police harassment.” EXACTLY — I couldn’t have said it better myself.)
2. There is no basis for a negligence suit by Gates against the Cabbed Caller.
Since the Massachusetts Good Samaritan statute provides no independent basis for liability, Gates would have to sue the Cabbed Caller under some other legal theory. It seems that you are arguing for a negligence claim, so I’ll respond to that (without considering alternate theories of liability).
You start with the question of damages, which is telling: “Gates was the victim and he suffered damages. The Cabbed Caller was attempting to help Gates, by protecting his house from a possible break-in, yet through her efforts Gates suffered more harm.”
Umm, shouldn’t we start with the question of liability?
I don’t think you’ve established your prima facie case here, Elie. You attempt to preemptively refute some of the arguments against liability, but you never establish liability in the first place (which is your burden, or Gates’s burden as the plaintiff).
The Cabbed Caller did not act unreasonably, and certainly not “wantonly” or “recklessly,” in calling the police. Professor Gates and President Obama have conceded as much. If you see two men, of any race, trying to force open the door to a house, it is not unreasonable to call the police. If anything, it would be unreasonable not to call the police.
Could the Cabbed Caller have taken other steps — e.g., walking up to Gates’s doorstep to investigate further, ask “what’s going on here,” etc. — that perhaps she wishes she had taken in hindsight? Sure. But it was certainly reasonable for her to leave this to the experts and call the police.
If anything, that decision — the decision to call the police, rather than to thrust herself into the situation directly — should be protected by a Good Samaritan law. She made a phone call that, in hindsight, she probably wishes she hadn’t made; but she did so in good faith, so she should be protected.
You then ask: “[Was it] reckless to call the cops in the first place? Well, for that I’d want to depose the witness. I’d want to know if she had any reason, at all, to believe that the cops would behave appropriately.”
Umm, why shouldn’t the question be whether she had any reason to believe the cops would act INappropriately? We’re not talking about the LAPD here. This is the People’s Republic of Cambridge, where even the cops buy their groceries at Whole Foods.
One other interesting point. I haven’t confirmed it myself, but according to one commenter:
Mass. bar studier here: Generally, reports made to police officers about potential crime are privileged if made in good faith. I don’t know what “good samaritan” laws you’re talking about, as they mainly involve whether or not someone who comes to another’s assistance could be held liable for negligently assisting the other. I bet the lady feels pretty stupid/terrible though.
Elie, I doubt that even you would claim that Gates has a defamation cause of action against the Cabbed Caller for fingering him as a burglar.
3. Damages are negligible.
Even assuming arguendo that the Cabbed Caller could be held liable on a negligence theory, the damages here strike me as minor. Sure, he was detained for a few hours (and considering how much Gates makes — you were a Harvard undergrad too, Elie, so you know he’s one of the highest-paid members of the faculty — his time is certainly worth money).
But I question the “reputational and psychological damages” that you claim Gates suffered. It seems to me that he is now a national cause célèbre, receiving huge amounts of public sympathy, and getting shout-outs from President Obama on national television. He has also kicked off a National Conversation About Race, which he is surely loving as an African-American studies scholar.
If anything, Gates should be grateful to the caller, for setting in motion a chain of events that has only increased his public profile. Prior to this, Henry Louis Gates was primarily a celebrity in academic circles. Now, he’s a household name.
In conclusion, I find this whole “Good Samaritan” analysis to be completely misplaced — a red herring, but too bizarre and not clever enough to be a good red herring. Please, let’s put it to merciful rest now.
ELIE’S REJOINDER
Ya, I’ll speak with yo’ mama outside.
(353) 
Comments
blah blah
*casually destroys a latham first year*
-dave g.
My dear sweet elie: your joking right? right? or just plain nuts! sigh
Wait a second--Lat makes a guest appearance simply for the purpose of completely destroying Elie (and this is an electronic castration if I've ever seen one) and there aren't 5,000 comments posted within the first 2 minutes? Has Elie already driven away that many readers?
Haven't read this yet, but Lat v. Elie should be fun.
Lat smart, Elie dumb
Above the Law would give aid and comfort to the enemy.
"Meanwhile, that the rest of the country is supposed to cringe and feel sorry that we are still a racist nation — as an African-American president, governor, and mayor all weigh in on the plight of an endowed African-American professor — seems odd."
- VIctor Davis Hanson.
"If you see two men, of any race, trying to force open the door to a house, it is not unreasonable to call the police. If anything, it would be unreasonable not to call the police."
This is the whole argument. If my house were burglarized, and I later found out there was a witness to it who didn't call the police, I'd be a little pissed.
Elie is an idiot. Maybe if Gates hadn't of acted like a dick, none of this would have happened.
Classic blunder -- never get into a landwar with Elie when food is on the line.
A) No wonder you didn't make it as a lawyer.
B) No wonder smart black men get arrested. You'd probably have cursed out the cop, too.
It seems quite clear to me that both Lat and Elie agree on at least one thing, namely that: the Class of 2011 is the lost generation.
elie's response is just a smidge more thought out than the random ppl yelling at me on the subway.
good god. you can't possibly have believed that to be a convincing argument.
Elie is ruining this blog.
Mr. Mystal, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Yikes, I would be worried about my job if my boss smacked me down like that.
Sweet justice - Elie getting his home/apartment robbed by burglars stealing his jelly doughnuts and the neighbors not calling it in.
Seriously, Elie, are you kidding with this crap?
Holding the woman responsible for anything is absurd. She acted completely reasonably and responsibly. In case you haven't noticed there are signs all across America that say things like "All Suspicious Activity Is Reported to the Police." Two men trying to force open a front door certainly qualifies as suspicious. In this case is turned out to be nothing, but you don't see two men heave-ho'ing a door open every day. Arguing that the woman who called 911 in the first place is somehow liable for Gates' "psychological damages" is the sort of absurdity that makes so many people despise lawyers. And no, it was not her job to intervene and ascertain what was going on....that was a possibly dangerous situation and she would have been foolhardy to try to interrupt a possible burglary. She acted as a reasonble citizen, not someone with delusions of superhero powers.
Elie - I think you forgot the most important part of your argument... there is definitely a section 90 restatement claim here. Lat would have nothing if you centered your argument around that provision.
"Well, for that I'd want to depose the witness. I'd want to know if she had any reason, at all, to believe that the cops would behave appropriately"
This is the dumbest thing that's ever been written or said.
Congrats, Elie...you've done it!
I know I should know the answer to this question, can someone tell me if Elie is black?
What is TTT?
Agree with 10.
Elie, there's something on your shoulder.
Elie attempt at legal analysis FAIL.
See Lat, Sec. 1 (shields not swords).
FIN.
Elie,
Well, with bulletproof references from another blog, I'm not sure I can argue against you. Your political analysis is shallow, your policy analysis is equivalent to a monkey flipping a coin, and now I see your ability to understand current affairs is equally bad.
Go walk into traffic. Or at least stop sharing your "thoughts."
This post is flame. Lat approved it only because he knew it would result in 200+ comments. I guess I can't blame Lat because people here consistently give 200+ comments to anything involving race.
Also, Gates even admitted that the door was messed up from a previous break-in so she was reasonable for calling and he should be happy police responded.
I was so stunned after reading Elie, I didn't bother to read Lat. I am white over 50, and I call routinely when I see people forcing their way into my neighbor's house, white black or green. Even if I know them, I'll call unless I know them well enough to ask what's up. Divorce situations, etc etc. You just never know.
I've been called by neighbors because i lose my keys all the time. (Never had a door swell shut!! Maybe Prof Gates was too proud to admit he lost key). I never mind. I am glad they are looking out for me.
Last but not least, having grown up white long haired and rebellious in the 70's I can assure that mouthing off at a cop, coming after him with a stick, etc etc is going to get you arrested in this day and age no matter who you are. I once almost got arrested for telling a robber I had a gun, HE called the police who searched me for a gun. I was in the parking lot of my lawyer's office wearing a coat and tie!!
This seems more to be about a proud aging man having a bad day, and I don't blame him at one level, but he shouldn't really take it out on the cops. They would have arrested anyone who acted that way. You may not agree with it, but it ain't racial.
Too long, don't read.
why are people being distracted by irrelevant facts? Fact: the cop arrested a "man" inside the "man's" own house- the cop felt insulted and abused his discretion by arresting the "man". The cop should have vacated private property the instant he recognized a false alarm.
#16 FTW.
elie fail
Here is a quote from Billy Madison for Mr. Mystal:
Mr. Mystal, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Retired partner here: Gosh Elie, I've been offended by much of the crap spewed out about you by many of the posters here. I don't know you, but you seem to be a guy simply trying to pay the bills. Anyway, you are way off base on this. It's just plain crazy to think the lady did anything wrong. Gates backtalked a cop, plain and simple, and he got what he deserved. The cop was dumb to take Gates in, but he had every right to do so. Gates is just another big mouth race baiter of the worst sort. Obama really put his foot in his mouth when he called the cop stupid, particularly considering how much he needs the support of white moderates in order to pass his healthcare plan.
Lat I'm not gay but I want to fuck you for this one
Someone should print out Elie's posts, mail it to the lady caller, and have her sue Mystal and Lat (vicarious liability*) for defamation and libel. It shouldn't be too hard to find her address.
* An actual basis for liability, unlike "Good Samaritan liability."
And that is why Elie couldn't hack it practicing law. If I'd vomited up the same scourge of shit that Elie did in a complaint, I'd get tossed from the courthouse faster than a first-year at MoFo. For God's sake get someone on here that knows the difference between his ass and whole in the ground.
33 here. Apologies -- I should have checked the comments before I posted!! I didn't think someone else would have the exact same reaction and think of the Billy Madison quote.
Yale>Random TTT Gunner>Harvard (Elie)
Guy who is shocked that Elie didn't stick with the practice of law.
"This is the People's Republic of Cambridge, where even the cops buy their groceries at Whole Foods."
Love it.
"Fact: the cop arrested a "man" inside the "man's" own house"
Fact: Arrest happened outside of home, and the cop responded to a report that two (2) people broke into the home (true), when cop asked man about the other person, man acted like a goddamned moron.
I would arrest anyone who pulls the "do you know who I am" shit or plays the race card. It is an embarrassment to this country that we are even talking about this, especially that every AA leader in the country is getting involved.
To (half-assedly) leap to Elie's defense:
No, good samaritan laws can't give rise to liability. And yes, the negligence claim is a little difficult to fathom. But with the facts at hand, I can think of at least one situation in which the caller might have been liable: IIED.
Like the Prez, I know not all the facts, but I can readily imagine that this woman - the neighbor of a famous Harvard scholar - knew damn well who it was who was knocking on the door and was just being a jerk. Maybe she doesn't like Gates' politics. Maybe SHE'S the racist. In any event, if she sic'd the cops on Professor Gates just to get his goat, she could absolutely be sued.
This would avoid all of the problems: no reasonableness problem, no damages problem and no need to bother with "recklessness" - she wouldn't have acted in good faith, and so wouldn't have been shielded by the statute in any event.
Was Elie wrong? Hell yes. But let's play nice, hm?
If I can summarize all of the statements thus far: all of you seem to have somewhat divergent viewpoints, but you all seem to agree unreservedly on one fact surrounding the Gates scandal, namely that: the Class of 2011 is the lost generation.
Dear Lat:
That was awesome. Now that you realize you have hired an editor who has the intellectual prowess of a mentally challenged 3rd grader, can you hire someone a bit more capable to edit a blog read by thousands of lawyers and law students.
Thanks,
Your Readers (and advertisers)
Elie, you stupid fuck. Everyone with a week of legal education and half a brain who has commented to any of the GaTTTes articles has reasonably and logically concluded that GaTTTes acted like a fucking retard. Stop trying to sell your dumb-fuck psychobabble.
What is the TV show with a theme that starts "There's a new girl in town......."? I forget the rest, but the tune is driving me crazy! I want to say "One Day at a Time", but doesn't sound right.
I'm convinced I'll never report when I see black men trying to force their way into a home again.
That was the DUMBEST argument ever, Elie. You should have your degree revoked.
OK. Recent HLS grad here. Let's get down to it. Prof. Gates is a lunatic, a bitter, twisted relic of a bygone age. He deliberately escalated the incident (how about the 'yo mama' comment?), precisely to procure his arrest, so that he could nail himself right back on the cross of victimhood. No one - certainly no one at Harvard - can touch him else they would be 'racists', too. Prof Gates' conduct was far more outrageous, than former Harvard president Larry Summer's statements (re women and the sciences). Okd Larry got himself run right out of town, but I'll bet you not one person in the Harvard administration will criticise Prof Gates' insane verbal assault on the police officer.
*graduates from syracuse law school, manages latham ny, fires half the office after massive expansion*
hehe
If Elie is the type of future attorney HLS sending out of its hallowed halls then God save our souls! Elie got b*tch-slapped by Lat. Bwahahahaha.
This situation is a joke. Gates is an arrogant prick. I can't believe this is making the headlines.
Lat, thank you for correcting (bitch slapping) Elie on his poorly reasoned argument. Maybe now he will go away and really think b4 he speaks/writes. I am generally one of those that think that the commentators are too harsh on the big guy. I can live with a few typos here and there, but enough is enough. Elie you are supposed to be a Harvard trained lawyer! The post by Elie has got to be one of the least well reasoned arguments I have ever read and I have read a lot. The community college introduction to law and society class I teach could have put together a more legally sound argument. Shieeeeeeeet (a la Clay Davis), my two-year-old can probably put together a more well reasoned argument. Elie, I sincerely hope you were joking.
layoff of latham would ya?
Gates is a racist douchebag.
Same thing would have happened if it were a black cop and a white resident who yelled at him: he would get arrested on disorderly conduct.
President Obama shouldn't have said anything because 1) he wasnt there / doesnt have all the facts; 2) he knows Gates and is therefore biased; and 3) most importantly, his opinion will garner MUCH more weight than it deserves in this matter. Its like a judge commenting on the evidence. He got himself into a political, racist mess that he could easily have avoided by simply saying "I don't have all the facts. I do know and respect Henry Gates. I also know that most police officers are trying their best to serve and protect without racist motives. I hope this is one of those cases."
Duh. I thought he was a talented "politician" until now. This was a misstep.
And again, Gates is a racist douchebag for using this as a tool for his own fame. It is a dangerous and selfish move to drive the racial wedge into a society trying to heal from a not too distant past of harmful racial inequality.
Yale (Lat) > Harvard (Elie)
Hell, DeFry Law School > Elie
Any bets on whether Lat would have a different opinion if the neighbor had been a big-handed homophobe and the professor liked balls on his chin?
I hate people like Elie who get off by making false accusations of racism against innocent people.
You make this country a slightly shittier place to live in by doing so.
I'm still surprised Mystal claims he went to Harvard and worked at Debevoise. What a dumbass fuck he is.
I think that Mystal is really just Lat in disguise, much as "Article III Groupie" was, but instead of playing a campy woman, he's pretending he's a dumb fatass. Maybe this is performance art ragging on affirmative action. If so, well done. If not, I weep for our country that Mystal is in it.
So if I hear ya'll correctly, you guys are suggesting that Class of 2011 is the lost generation?
Is is me or did Lat just make like a female Boston attorney and shart all over Elie?
"Could the Cabbed Caller have reasonably foreseen that calling the cops would lead to the arrest of whomever was in the house? I say yes."
Way too conclusory Elie. Fail.
Get a life you racist fuck
rule 11 for elie
Agree with 45. I really can't take Elie anymore. This is just too much. Please alert me when he is fired. Until then I'm out. Please join me.
It's reckless to say that people who call 911 when they think a crime may be afoot are acting recklessly. Tippers should be encouraged to tip, even if they end up being grossly mistaken; it's the cops job to determine whether it's an actual criminal act.
Lat's response to Elie at 0:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4jLrf82Tqc
Elie, I'm a liberal and someone that agrees that the police "acted stupidly." That being said, your argument is one of the poorest legal arguments I have ever read. If someone did file something like this, they should be exposed to Rule 11 sanctions. Your argument did achieve one thing--it made me lose any sense of appreciation that I had for a Harvard law degree. I now see that it means nothing and that students can graduate with a degree from Harvard and secure a job at a top firm without having even the slightest modicum of legal reasoning ability.
HLS turns out tttrash.
Who is Elie?
Elie's rejoinder is the best.
" I'd want to know if she had any reason, at all, to believe that the cops would behave appropriately."
OMG Elie. If you asked this question to a witness in a depo, the witness would be befuddled at first and then laugh at you. OF COURSE SHE THINKS THE COPS WOULD BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY. PEOPLE DON'T CALL THE COPS FOR THEM TO BEHAVE INAPPROPRIATELY. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
That old lady should be night sticked into submission. She is obviously sexist. If it had been two women breaking in would she have called the cops? I think not!
This is BY FAR the worst post in the history of ATL. I can't believe I wasted my time reading it....
Don't agree with Ellie here, but this post took a lot of guts. How many of you (anonymous) posters would say something out loud knowing your boss would rip you to shreds? (Not sure if he knew that Lat would bitchslap him publicly, but he had to know what Lat privately thinks of his point here.)
It's an unpopular point and the criticisms are appropriate, but the kid has balls.
43 - even the guy who took the picture said he didn't know who Gates is, and he appears to live across the street from him.
Elie's Good Samaritan liability theory = ATL jumping the shark
"He deliberately escalated the incident precisely to procure his arrest, so that he could nail himself right back on the cross of victimhood."
BRILLIANT writing. I totally agree.
Gates = racist douche
Elie, your readers have come to expect very little from you. Most of us think you're not very intelligent, that your grasp of legal issues is wanting, and that you're just not any good at writing, but this is a new low. You weren't able to make a single solitary cogent point in that poorly thought out, inarticulate jumble you call a 'legal analysis'. That's just plain embarrassing.
Elie, your readers have come to expect very little from you. Most of us think you're not very intelligent, that your grasp of legal issues is wanting, and that you're just not any good at writing, but this is a new low. You weren't able to make a single solitary cogent point in that poorly thought out, inarticulate jumble you call a 'legal analysis'. That's just plain embarrassing.
Wow, what an asinine argument.
as to reasonableness of the witness--I believe that the reason Gates' front door was broken was b/c of a previous attempted break-in.
Examples of blatant racism in 21st century America:
1. Youths in Louisiana are aggressively prosecuted for beating a classmate unconscious. They assert the popular "a racist incident happened at our school months ago" defense and a tortured nation rushes to the their aid.
2. A professor is arrested for disorderly conduct in Mass. for yelling at a police officer at his home. Both parties acted like jerks. Charges were dropped hours later. The Harvard professor and his friend the most powerful man in the world somehow fight through the trauma.
3. A single mother in Durham, NC works hard to support her kids while attending a HBCU when entitled rich white Duke students plot to gangrape her. The rich white kids pay off the governor and the state attorney general and are declared innocent.
4. A youthful defendant in Georgia is given a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for receiving a BJ from an underage classmate under a ridiculous law. The black attorney general aggressively fights to sustain the conviction but eventually the state supreme court headed by a black chief justice sets the boy free.
5. A supreme court packed with whites and a regular uncle tom rule that all firefighter job promotions must go to whites.
Wow, what an asinine argument.
Check her background. The lady is most likely a Russian operative trying to stir up racial insurrection, thus weakening America while rekindling a Cold War. Why else would she call the cops when two guys, be they black or white or purple, are trying to break into a house?
How could anyone with this kind of logic, or lack thereof, graduate from HLS, let alone pass the bar exam? Plants in my house have better reasoning skills. Of course, this is probably a goof on us, because no one could really be that dumb.
Again, this blog has been infested by the far right. I ask moderate and progressive people to not just back and let these a-holes take over this site. The comments here are probably 4 to 1 against Gates. This is not an accurate reflection of America, which is probably at least 45 percent in favor of Gates. Please don't just sit back and let these white supremacists, I mean federalist society types to take over because, believe me, they will. They have unlimited energy.
This notion that people here seem to be expressing that "of course Gates should have gotten arrested for the way he treated the cop" is assinine. There is nothing illegal about talking back to a police officer or not showing him or her the proper deference. Maybe you don't agree with talking to the police that way, but it's not arrest-worthy. Disorderly conduct can be just about anything and is obviously incredibly subjective.
So don't let these bastards take over.
60- you're absolutley right! How could I have not seen it?
Lat- best performance art I've ever seen. So good I didn't realize it was art at first. This retard-manchild-affirmative-action-baby character you cooked up is pure genuis! Powerful stuff- more persuasive than any straight up argument I've ever read. Bravo!
Again, this blog has been infested by the far right. I ask moderate and progressive people to not just sit back and let these a-holes take over this site. The comments here are probably 4 to 1 against Gates. This is not an accurate reflection of America, which is probably at least 45 percent in favor of Gates. Please don't just sit back and let these white supremacists, I mean federalist society types to take over because, believe me, they will. They have unlimited energy.
This notion that people here seem to be expressing that "of course Gates should have gotten arrested for the way he treated the cop" is assinine. There is nothing illegal about talking back to a police officer or not showing him or her the proper deference. Maybe you don't agree with talking to the police that way, but it's not arrest-worthy. Disorderly conduct can be just about anything and is obviously incredibly subjective.
So don't let these bastards take over.
Kudos to Elie for put himself out here like this (knowing full well that he'd get attacked).
If anything, this proves that Elie can't reason worth a damn. A blog like this is as only as good as the articles posted. This is the writing on the wall. Lat, fire Elie. There is an inverse relationship between the latitude granted to Elie to espouse this trash and the integrity of this blog.
ATL is very close to jumping the shark.
I am a journalist, and I write stories.
90 - dead wrong. Look at the comments on CNN's first article about this. About 85-90% are agaisnt GaTTTes, and more liberals check CNN than conservatives (who have Fox News to give them what they want).
Most of America is against GaTTTes on this one because he is wrong.
88, what is the basis for your numbers?!? I'm a registered independent, socially-left leaning NYC resident, voted for Obama, and I am 100% on the cop's side here. Pretty sure there are a lot of us non-rigities who feel the same way.
And this is from the Editor in chief of a blog dedicated to legal issues. Wow.
89 - This IS performance art. Elie and Lat are both in on the joke. It is like the World Wresting Federation or American Gladiators - contrived fighting, for entertainment purposes.
That said, it is very entertaining.
I was a Third Circuit clerk when Lat was in the Appeals Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office (D.N.J.). Lat wrote some excellent briefs (even my judge said so).
This is a reminder of that.
Your views would be 180 degrees the other way if she were black and someone was arguing she should be somehow liable.
88/90 is out of touch with reality but for some reason thinks America adopts his views.
Lat -
I wonder if you are seeing what your weakness is. Your weakness is that, though a brilliant guy, you are a fairly shitty judge of talent. Maybe being a genius of sorts, you just don't relate to people well enough - you give people too much credit. You've had some real shitty writers here: Elie, SEN, the bitch who writes trashy romance lawyer fiction. Not sure if there have been others but, even so, you are batting about .500 in the hiring department, which, considering this is not baseball, is pretty shitty. (Word of the day, I know).
At any rate, that's my $0.02. Also, I offer to fight Elie in a steel cage, each of us slathered in marshmallow fluff. Winner gets the EIC gig.
Gates was just looking for street cred and free publicicity for his upcoming book on race. I hope Crowley pursues the defamation suit against that idiot, and perhaps he should join Barry for the "stupidly" comment as well.
88 and 90 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Myside_bias
elie...
do you even know what a good samaritan law is??
honestly, i mean, a 1L at a tier 4 law school could have told you that your idea was complete and utter trash.
i can't believe you went to harvard.
i can't believe lat even dignified you with a response.
i can't believe that he let you post this.
go have another donut and stick to posting legal news, tips, & gossip. leave your own opinions out. they're horrible, illogical, and a waste of everyone's time.
but of course, you already know that, don't you??
ever since you became editor, you've had that fat-kid-in-elementary-school mentality, where the only thing you've got is the fact that people mock you & tear you to bits... but that's YOUR place... that's YOUR role... and since that's all you have, you relish it. so you poke fun at yourself for being fat, post horrible and non-sensical opinions, and laugh to yourself as we make fun: "haha! that's just me being my good old jolly, punching bag, self! elie, the legal fool here for everyone's amusement! heee haw!"
...then you turn around in your chair and sigh because no one likes or respects you.
YOU DO IT TO YOURSELF
I look forward to the day when blacks will not reflexively defend other blacks, regardless of culpability.
Elie is as dumb and racist as the blacks who think OJ was not guilty.
If this were Quantum Leap, Sam would leap into Elie right now to set right what once went wrong.
If I were Lat I'd be asking for Elie's resignation right now.
Surely there is a REAL laid off attorney in NY who can also do a half assed editing job.
It seems Elie sucks as an editor (moving this argument forward when its not even an interesting hypo), an attorney (a layperson would have destroyed that argument in court prima facie as Lat pointed out without intent to do so), and a person (seriously, who wants to live in a country where people don't call the cops when they see someone breaking into their neighbors home?).
Why is he still here?
elie you might want to stick to being the middle man for other blogs to gain notariety here, like Breadline.
There's not really any words to describe your post, other than that it was a joke. We always knew you to be a partisan hack and perhaps not the sharpest, but you really are, and I mean you REALLY ARE, giving HLS a bad name, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to contact you about your amabssadorship after that pile of shit.
It's funny how many commenters fail to realize that Elie's silliness is the reason he is good. He lets all you anonymous associates locked in your offices feel superior about yourself on a daily basis and pass on the unnecessary abuse and petty badgering you get from your higher-ups. It's obviously something you deeply crave and enjoy, even if you are only able to express yourselves in the most redundant, unoriginal manner possible, over and over again, in every single thread.
90: You are a damn idiot.
No one (other than you) thinks this is about "disorderly conduct." Rather, this issue has legs for one reason: race.
Nobody cares whether the arrest was warranted or not, but whether it was racially motivated. You think Obama would be commenting on this if Gates hadn't thrust race to the forefront of the possible motives for arrest?
Elie, if the lady who called the police was black would you still argue that she is liable?
Hey, I heard a rumor that Latham laid off some first years in New York. Any truth to this?
109 nailed it.
Hey 90, http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-303137
Seriously check out CNN, a centrist website and see the comments.
90-
If a black cop responded to a break in report at a trailer park in Mississippi and ended up arresting some white hillbilly for mouthing off, even after he showed the cop the paper title to his fine trailer house, would you be equally offended by the racism?
The fact is, Mr. Gates (regardless of race) acted like an ass and got taken to task. Yes, it cost him four hours of his life. Perhaps those four hours will remind him to be more respectful and gain some perspective the next time an honest, good-intentioned mistake occurs.
This is a legal blog. The only point of this "post" was to show how one of the bloggers has zero comprehension of the concepts of proof, causation, liability, damages and common fucking sense. I don't want to read Lat's "slap down" to a 100% meaningless post. Better to have forbade the nonsensical post in the first instance.
Lat - get your house in order, bitch.
As BarBri said, "Imagine a moron who passed, and think of him whenever you doubt that you'll pass."
I'll be thinking of you Elie . . .
Lat, have more respect for the blog you founded. Don't let this trash get posted.
91: "Kudos to Elie for put himself out here like this (knowing full well that he'd get attacked)."
What?? Kudos to someone for saying something so stupid that he knew it was wrong??
"If I get a paper cut on a letter, I should be able to sue the sender for battery!"
"The government should just give me money; the fact that I have to work to live is involuntary servitude!
"The earth is flat!"
Yeah Elie - Kudos for being stupid.
114 - CNN is not even centrist. CNN is slightly left of the voting populace. This is an issue on which the overwhelming majority of people, if not outright supportive of Crowley, at least think that Gates acted like by far the bigger moron.
Good Samaritan law exempts those who attempt to assist.
Even if it doesn't apply, a reasonable person could exempt the caller from liability because the police arrested Gates.
A tortured non-story.
Fire Elie!
To Elie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&feature=related
Just how big of a bump does Harvard give to URM applicants?
106, you rock my world.
Elie,
Go to your local bus station, find a bus that is heading to Selma, Alabama, and step in front of it as it drives away.
121 is correct.
43:
IIED? Really?? You feel that calling the police in response to two men forcing their way into a house is conduct that could be classified as extreme and outrageous? Such that it transcends all bounds of decency.
I ordered a pizza yesterday on the phone because I was hungry. Sort of what you would call a natural reaction. Turns out the pizza place was really busy and the delivery guy was pretty flustered when he arrived. I'd better lawyer up...
Ellie, you are a fucking retard. The good news is that if you were a Latino woman, you would be qualifed to serve on the Supreme Court of the US.
"Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood"
Sorry, Elie, but sometimes burglars happen to be black. Is your ideal world really one in which black people can never be questioned by law enforcement?
Elie: "Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood."
You are completely mischaracterizing the evidence (and losing credibility). It was not just a "black person," but a black person/s who was FORCING OPEN AN OBVIOUSLY LOCKED DOOR. I swear to god, if someone SAW 2 grown men, black, white, hispanic, asian, or any race, BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, I would be incredibly irate if they did not call the police. My house was actually just burglarized (during the day) in June, and I would have greatly appreciated a neighbor calling the cops instead of standing idly by.
Your entire argument presupposes that calling police is an unreasonable thing to do, which is probably the stupidest argument I've ever heard. I don't know what you would suggest she do, but next time you observe a potential crime in progress I DARE you to investigate on your own instead of calling the police. The Citizen Cop. Is that what you are advocating?
I don't understand you at all.
47: http://www.televisiontunes.com/Alice_-_1976.html
I am deeply disturbed by the assumptions on which Elie based his opinion. It's a given that police will automatically wail on "two black men holding backpacks?" Holding a neighbor liable for calling the police about a possible break-in = "social progress"? Elie, please, you're embarassing the rest of us liberals.
this site and its bullshit liberal bias sickens me...im no longer reading...poice officer had probable cause to make arrest based on complaint...i hate cops but it seems that we bend over backwards in this countyr to find racism...the cop in this matter teaches classes on how to not racially profile...wheres that in ur report lat...u piece of fat shit
this site and its bullshit liberal bias sickens me...im no longer reading...poice officer had probable cause to make arrest based on complaint...i hate cops but it seems that we bend over backwards in this countyr to find racism...the cop in this matter teaches classes on how to not racially profile...wheres that in ur report lat...u piece of fat shit
Look everyone acted like a twerp in this scenario, including Elie. Can we move on now?
Not a stellar week for HLS grads....Obama was the one acting "stupidly" by weighing in on a topic about which he (by his own admission) is not fully informed. Then he goes on some barely relevant tangent about Blacks and Latinos getting stopped "disproportionately" by the cops. Gates wasn't "stopped" by the cops, genius. Oy, this country's in trouble if this is how BHO really thinks.
Yes peoples, don't pit this as a liberals v. conservatives issue. Speaking for this liberal - Mr. Gates was a d-d-d-d-d-d-dipshit!
This is America. I have the right to speak my mind (of course with some limits). But I certainly have the right to disagree with a police officer. And I damn sure have the right to raise my voice in my own home. Cops are a bad breed--little more than the modern day equivalent of the Glanton Gang.
137, but but he had "proof" that he was in his own home! We all know that you can't commit non-burglary crimes or be arrested for them once you're in your own home.
As a graduate of Ohio State law, I am, according to Justice Scalia, a sow's ear. Elie, however, is a silk purse.
I really want to mail a copy of this post to J. Scalia. Enjoy your silk purses, Antonin.
No offense or anything, but if Elie is indicative of the quality of intellect that Harvard is producing, I am very thankful I chose to go elsewhere. Day after day he makes unsupportable accusations, ridiculous arguments, and unfounded assumptions. It is beyond me how he managed to get a job on this blog. In fact, I've reached the point that I skip anything he writes, particularly if it has to do with gay rights issues. I read what he wrote today only to see Lat slap it down.
I like Obama - even voted for him - but between speaking on this issue and his health care disaster, he's having as bad a month as Hillary Clinton!
I don't know what kind of lawyers they're producing at Harvard, but if they're anything like Elie Mystal, then I think I figured out why there is so much turmoil in the legal profession right now. Idiot.
I actually think Elie should be fired for this post. It displays his complete inability to engage in meaningful legal analysis. You shouldn't be writing a legal blog if you can't engage in some level of reasoned legal analysis.
Now, I don't know all the facts, but I think it's fair to say, number one, that Elie Mystal is an idiot.
I'm Barack Obama?
The cop should of appologized for the mixup turned around and walked away, let the guy yell and scream all he wants. Dont escalate it by arresting him. The cop made a bad decision and this doesn't mean I dont appreciate police or that I dont "support" the police as some would suggest.
Elie went to Harvard School of the Law, a slightly unaccredited insitution specializing in anal law, which is commonly confused with Harvard Law School (sorry Loyola, it happens to others as well).
Elie has to be doing this just to generate hits. There is no way someone with a JD from HLS could be this stupid. Is there?
Elie, I like your writing and your wit, and I don't dig all the ad hominem attacks against you on these comment strings, but oh man are you ever off base on this issue.
ELIE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME - HE EXPRESSED A VIEW - WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO - that lady would never have called the cops had it been a white person - STOP PATTING YOURSELVES ON THE BACK AND CALLING ELIE AN IDIOT - AT LEAST HE WENT TO HARVARD (AND NOT WITH YOUR BLESSINGS OR PERMISSION) - AND MOST of you DID NOT - SO BACK OFF
Elie: "Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood."
That day is today. In many black neighborhoods it is not okay to call the cops.
Elie, after you get fired from ATL perhaps you can sell T-shirts with the phrase "Don't be a Snitch"
Elie's poor legal analysis sounds like it came from a 1L at Princeton.
-Fully aware Princeton has no law school
Elie is absolutely retarded. Dear god that was pathetic.
147: It simply means that you are an idiot
123, you're ripping me off (Hoo Hoo, Robin).
--68.
Elie to Lat: "Ya, I'll speak with yo' mama outside."
I have met Mrs. Lat (Dr. Lat). Elie, you don't want to mess with her. She's a 4'10" force of nature in a St. John suit.
(Filipinos are tiny but tough. See Manny Pacquiao.)
First!
Elie, a word of advice, never go full retard.
I haven't read through all the comments, but Elie sums it up best when he says, "Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood."
Blacks feel that if they are ever arrested it is because they are being persecuted. Maybe if you see 2 blacks breaking into a house you should call the cops?!
Someday I hope I do not live in Elie's world where people are afraid to call the cops because they will get sued by some Harvard grad for doing so.
Elie go back to the hole you come from. As we say in NYC - "if you see something say something" - that is how we all keep safe. If you are not commiting a crime (which Gates wasnt) then there should be no problem talking to cops. End of story. Of course for blacks (including Obama) no matter what happens it is the police who acted "stupidly". Get over it.
" the Cabbed Caller's recklessness" followed by "not intervening if you could reasonably foresee the actions."
.
I stopped reading there. Recklessness being demonstrated by reasonable foreseeability? Go back to 1L torts Elie. And Lat is right. This doesn't create a cause of action at all and the characterization that "she could be held liable under a good Samaritan statute" is nonsensical.
.
Perhaps you were one of those unfortunate HLS students who had Prof. Nesson for torts, and were asked to count purple bricks on buildings instead of actually learning torts or the law. If that's the case, you have my sympathy and pity. But it doesn't excuse the patently absurd analysis engaged in here which, from the outset, employed flawed premises and flatly incorrect legal concepts.
Lots of my idiot friends went to HLS; it was no big deal.
Elie's opinion is ridiculous. Much more plausible is a suit by the copy against Gates for slander.
Yale for the win!
That wasn't a very good showing for HLS. I wonder how many HLS grads in V100 firms write like this?
151 - While your bleeding heart liberal views on this issue are as much appreciated as your likely attempts to save the world by handing out flyers on street corners for Greenpeace, I do believe you are an idiot. Nobody accused Elie of committing a crime, unless his last cheeseburger was so good "it was a crime."
The problem is, he expressed a view which he is entitled to, but which is so highly flawed that it calls into question the entire system of legal education in this country. By that, I mean he has a top law degree but analyzes the law as if he never spent a day in class.
Additionally, I'm not quite sure what you mean about "at least he went to harvard." The fact of the matter is, I did not go to Harvard UniversiTTTy, yet my ability to engage in superior reasoned legal analysis makes me wonder if Elie Mystal was in fact qualified to attend Harvard in the first place.
So YOU back off. In fact, I think you could probably use a shot of 151, 151.
People here clearly don't know how police officers go about their jobs. There was a call about a burglary...that is ALL the cops know, that there was an *alleged* burglary in progress. When the cops get there they don't know if there was a burglary or something else going on, they have reason to believe that suspicious activity was taking place. Even if Gates did show his ID and proved he lives there, all the cop knows is that there was suspicious activity going on and it's his job to make sure everything's OK. A good cop won't say, "Oh, this guy lives here so I should leave now." If there is anything suspicious the cop should check it out. Maybe there's a domestic disturbance...remember the report said there are TWO people breaking in, so the cop needs to find out where that other person is. Is he hiding upstairs with a gun? The cop doesn't know. But Gates seems to have done nothing to dispell the office's suspcion, if anything Gates stoked it. Seriously, if there were some situation where Gates could have been in danger, but the cops showed up and said, "Oh well, this guy's in his own house, let's go" and then somehow Gates was harmed, people would be saying the cops don't care enough about a Black man's safety to investigate the situation further. It's a no-win for the cop. Again, just people someone calls in a burglary doesn't mean a cop investigated only a burglary, all the cop knows is that's what some random citizen thinks he/she saw. But Gates jumps to the conclusion that it's racial harrassment. Personally, I belive Crowley. No white cop would think to make up something as absurd like "because I'm a Black man in America you're asking me for ID?" Gates should be thankful that a neighbor thought to report suspicious activity, and that the responding officer did due diligence to investigate that all was OK and not just assume it was just mistaken identity.
This would never happen at FAMU.
FREE SPEECH!!!!
FREE SPEECH!!!
you guys who are "intimidating" Elie into silence are basically denying him free speech!
bullshit. sounds pretty stupid doesnt it, you conservative Thio protectors.
PS, this Gates thing is not a liberal/conservative issue. As a liberal, I think Gates is a totally racist d-bag tool.
so ATL ADMITS to baiting us? Why? Why must you turn this blog into a den of race-homophobe-dangleKashinfrontofus baiting?
Lat, there is a more charitable reading of Elie's argument that makes it a little sloppy, but surely on par with what half of us wrote on our 1L Torts exam.
There's no reason to expect him to point out negligence as a cause of action in what is obviously a tort case. And there's no reason to expect him to discuss breach under negligence when he has already argued that the caller would be liable under a recklessness standard. So the only valuable portion of your response was your argument that the caller acted neither recklessly nor negligently.
To me, your response reads like boiled-over passive aggression that's been brewing under the lid for too long-- way to make it public.
Elie, you are a fucktard who has acted "stupidly," presumptively in an effort to be a good race Samaritan. I am now going to sue you under your own stupid theory. The remedy: an injunction removing you from this blog.
Elie,
you're still my ninja
Jesus Christ. Gates is a prick who has successfully trivialized African Americans' legitimate claims of police harassment and set us all back 20 years. What a joke. And then there is Elie. Elie's piece was one of the most incredibly stupid things I have EVER read on the Internet. Yet another, "hey! let's try to make something out of nothing!" arguments - again, setting us all back. As if AA's don't have legitimate gripes. UGGHHH. I have read 9/11 conspiracies that made more sense.
Hi, everybody Say, where't that line to give Elie a slap upside the head?
does anybody else think Gates might have set this whole thing up?
locked his keys inside on purpose?
told his neighbor to call and report a "black" break in?
shouted and antagonized until he would get arrested for disorderly?
All on purpose? Knowing that he could spin it and climb the racism victims ladder to the top?
Its not unfathomable that he set this whole thing up. Just sayin.
Elie is a troll. Stop feeding him.
Elie is way better than all of you.
HE'S THE EDITOR OF ABOVE THE LAW!!!
What more of a prestigious and honorable position can you achieve?
170 - You clearly just completed your first year of law school. Congratulations. I bet you got a B+. Mom must have been proud.
If someone takes legal action against another (criminal or civil), for example making false reports to the police, then he/she can be liable for "abuse of process." At least that's the case in NY. However, that isn't what happened to Gates. Unless, the caller knew the allegation was false and wanted to get at Gates for some reason.
"Someday, it will not be okay to call the cops on any black person that appears in your neighborhood."
I hope: "Someday, it will be okay to call the cops when they suspect people are breaking into a home, regardless of race"
Has Alan Dershowitz made any comments about what happened to Gates.
Lord have mercy, as a minority HLS grad, I'm embarrassed and can tell you with certainty that Elie's reasoning here is NOT a fair/representative example of what you'd see in class.
What it may be a more representative example of is the end result of affirmative action. Congratulations Elie.
I believe 179 is correct. Both Elie and Lat are wrong.
Where is John Galt?
182 - Thank you for your honesty. I had a sneaking suspicious that you Harvard kids weren't exactly stupid. By the way, when they delete comments and the comments I am referring to change numbers, I probably look like an idiot.
182 - Thank you for your honesty. I had a sneaking suspicion that you Harvard kids weren't exactly stupid. By the way, when they delete comments and the comments I am referring to change numbers, I probably look like an idiot.
Elie's embarassingly harebrained analysis should prompt those of us who are liberal to seriously rethink our support for affirmative action. Elie may not be stupid, but his writing on this blog reveals him someone of, at most, average abilities who would be very much underqualified for admission to HLS.
Fairness is the touchstone of our moral sensibilities as human beings. It is why black men rightly express outrage at being profiled by the police and it is also why white students who are demonstrably more intelligent than Elie, but toil in obscurity at some TTT, feel so outraged when they read his inane posts replete with spelling and grammar mistakes and then are reminded that he went to HLS (and so he must be smart, right?).
151, you're an asshat for even suggesting that the woman wouldn't have called the cops had the two men breaking in been white. Thats just stupid. Are you drunk?
I often think Elie is on to something, but this time he is not. Woman sees her neighbor's house being broken into, calls cops. Thats all it is. It is foolish to suggest she had other options...."oh, two men are breaking into Neighbor Gates' house....I'll go try to work it out with them myself. Because people who break into houses generally reasonable enough."
This whole thing has been blown tremendously out of proportion. Yes, it is Boston (or Cambridge). Yes, it was Henry Louis Gates. Yes, Gates is black. Lots of police incidents ARE about race. This time, more things indicate that it isn't. A pox on 24-hour news.
You guys (Lat included) are all giving the Cambridge police force WAY too much credit. They are not a bunch of drum-circle hippies who happen to have badges. They are a bunch of townie thugs (like all other Boston cops) who think anyone with a college degree -- God forbid a Harvard degree -- is a worse enemy than a criminal.
Save us Mitt Romney
Elie, I never criticize your many grammatical errors or other forgivable slights. Heck, I find you generally entertaining.
But this is the stupidest piece of racist trash I've ever read on this blog. Even Lat can't figure out how to make it funny, and you can't figure out how to make it logical, even to a small child.
After reading this, it's clear to me you couldn't hack it at a law firm, at least not at mine.
AffirmaTTTTive action.
Gates planned it all.
and if he didnt, he might as well have--he's getting enough benefit out of it.
Hey Elie, if Lat follows the commenters' lead and fires you, maybe Rev. Al Sharpton needs in-house counsel?
Lat is the fucktard who let this putrid shit get published.
I'm usually an Elie defender, but this was one of the most staggeringly stupid things I've ever read. However, the African-American reaction to this in general has been so over the top that I am going to give Elie a partial pass because stupidity on this issue clearly goes all the way up the chain of command (I'm looking at you, BHO).
I'm fairly liberal myself, and generally agree with a lot of points about discrimination, affirmative action, etc., but this whole Gates thing is just dumb. I think I may have identified a key point where different racial viepoints are having an affect and can partially explain the black reaction, though.
I'm not sure black people realize that cops are dicks to everybody. Everybody, all the time. Cops are just generally power-tripping assholes. If anyone, no matter what race, yells at a cop after they respond to a call, they are going to jail nine times out of ten, I don't care if they were rescuing puppies. By all reports this Gates character is a self-important prick who bitched the cops out after they showed up. It doesn't matter if you're a freaking translucent albino, you're going to jail if you act like that.
Get over it, people. You're cheapening your other, valid arguments, and what's more, you just sound stupid.
Elie, that was brilliant. I'm distributing leaflets of it right now all over Cambridge.
Lat, you're a moron. How could anyone with such sloppy analysis make it through law school.
you guys have said some pretty nasty things to some afro-americans
despite typos, 196 is right.
- a translucent albino
151 = Ellie. I can tell by the way he fat fingered the keyboard.
I stopped reading Elie's answer when he said the intervening cause was the police. The intervening cause is not the police. It was the hack of a professor being a beligerent moron thinking everyone knew who he was. Gates would have to prove that the officers didn't have probable cause to arrest him to even get a shot at going after the caller. And then he'd still have to show she could have foreseen the police's violation of a Constitutional right.
Obama is the fool in this whole scenario. He's the president and doesn't need to answer a question where he prefaces the answer with, "I don't know all the facts, but..."
Here is what our world would look like if Obama went around using these answers for other areas of actual responsibility:
Iran:
"I don't know all the facts, but the election looked legitimate."
Honduras:
"I don't know all the facts, but Zelaya seems to be the legitimate President."
Healthcare:
"I'm don't know what is in the House bill, but it needs to be passed by August 1."
Economy:
"I don't know if the stimulus started working yet, but we should pass another."
Imagine if he started acting out of ignorance how horrible our world would be...
wait...Gates was BLACK?!?!?!
Ok, now I'm pissed. I thought he was white and I couldn't figure out why this story was getting national attention, seemed pretty standard to me.
Now I know...
That cop was a racist bastard!!
I always thought Elie was kinda slow, but until this post I didn't realize he was actually a bona fide retard... now I know.
"Because if there is willful and wanton recklessness here, it rests with this person's belief that the police would behave appropriately towards a black man in a Cambridge suburb after being "tipped" that there was a B&E in progress. I know that point angers people of all races -- especially perhaps those who think we are just a few steps away from living in a happy racial utopia where justice is truly blind.
But justice is not blind, not even close, and at some point it becomes aggressively dangerous to pretend that it is. The Cabbed Caller knows, or should have known, that the police would overreact to the situation she presented them with. It was incumbent upon her to take her head out of the sand and engage with the world as it is, not as she would like it to be. "
Has anyone really addressed how preposterous using this argument to support a claim of liability on the part of the caller is?
1) I really don't know what a "Cambridge suburb" is (Somerville? Medford? Regardless, not what we are talking about here anyway...the situation took place in Cambridge proper..whatever)....yet do we honestly want average citizens to do sociological/psychological profiling on their police force before they call in suspected break-ins, robberies, etc.? Why should the caller have "known" that "overreaction" was a given? The presumption is because some members of a police force may have been accused of racial profiling/prejudice in the past, that the majority of police will behave in a like manner?? With that logic, then the homeowners in poorer minority neighborhoods such as Anacostia (DC), Dorchester (Boston), and Mott Haven (Bronx) should not call the police if they suspect a minority is breaking into a local residence (unless, of course, they "question" them first, which is oh-so-reasonable, given the real possibility of violent retaliation).
2) So ultimately, the Cabbed caller should have known that Cambridge police would have "overreacted" to the situation....based on what? Should the "reasonable person" now be expected to consult statistical analyses on a regular basis, to determine if there is a likelihood of their police "overreacting" to a call reporting a crime involving a minority? If not, what exactly would the standards be then? A certain number/percentage of complaints of racial biases/prejudice against the local force over the past one, two, five, ten years, that the "reasonable person" should somehow be aware of? Or, perhaps, particularly striking anecdotal evidence (i.e., of course, the Cabbed Caller should have known the police would overreact; doesn't she remember the incident that was reported in the newspaper a year/month/week ago?...). Do you really want citizens made liable for the reactions of enforcement officials?
Elie, I actually have appreciated your point of view on many issues, and we all have a learning curve, but in this case, I really sense an emotional reaction on your part that truly overwhelms rational discussion of this sensitive issue.
We can argue the appropriateness of the individual officer's reaction in arresting Prof. Gates; I just cannot understand your crusade against the woman who made the call....your legal arguments are specious at best.
Everyone out there studying for the New York bar exam, remember this--Elie passed and so can you!
I share David's frustration and also share the conviction of the Billy Madison fans who feel dumber for having read Elie's case for liability, which makes no sense at all.
Elie: under no circumstances will I call the police if I see what appears to be your apartment being broken into or what appears to be someone committing a crime against you. There is the possibility that I might be mistaken about what I saw; when I know I have nothing to fear by sitting idly by and doing nothing, why would I want to subject myself to being sued and having to respond to discovery requests about the foreseeability of what might have happened following my call to the police. Too bad that all your stuff got stolen by thieves; I didn't feel certain enough at the time that my contemporaneous assessment of whether benefits would exceed costs would turn out to be right in hindsight.
Despite my growing suspicion that this entire post was an obvious attempt at trolling -- I find it hard to believe that Elie actually thinks what he says he does (although his thought process is indeed difficult to follow) -- I thought that there was one question that David didn't acknowledge.
Suppose that Cabbed Caller recognized Professor Gates and realized that it was him, or probably was him, breaking into his own house but decided to call the police anyway because Cabbed Caller doesn't like Professor Gates (either for race-based reasons or because Cabbed Caller simply dislikes him for neutral reasons) and thought it would be funny to watch Professor Gates, who's apparently been locked out of his own house, have to deal with the police showing up and demanding to know what's going on, etc.(I have absolutely no reason to believe that this was what occurred and it doesn't sound like anyone else thinks there's any basis to think that's what happened either.)
What should be the outcome under a Good Samaritan statute? Should we actually allow a lawsuit and discovery to proceed, so that there's a potential remedy for this kind of weird and unlikely situtation? Or would even having the potential for a lawsuit and after-the-fact discovery into Cabbed Caller's thought processes in calling the police -- for whatever reason -- make it too costly for people to intervene in good faith, contrary to the purpose of encouraging well-meaning people to call the police when they see an apparent (or possible) crime in progress?
202,
but the yo mama joke makes more sense now, right?
(at least Gates didn't play into racial stereotypes, sheesh, that would have propounded racism even more than the cop arresting him. Moron.)
PS, to preempt the inevitable joke:
I just propounded my secretary in the ass.
BLACK OFFICER PRESENT AT SCENE SUPPORTS ARREST:
http://wbztv.com/local/gates.arrest.Leon.2.1099853.html
"A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he supports "100 percent" how his white fellow officer handled the situation..
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary.
Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."
Gates has said he was the victim of racial profiling.
President Barack Obama says the officers "acted stupidly."
Lashley called Obama's remark "unfortunate" and said he should be allowed to take it back."
Elie's argument isn't terrible (still bad though), it is just poorly written and explained. I think (and I could be wrong) he is trying to argue that the caller acted negligently by calling the cops and reporting that two BLACK men with backpacks were breaking into a home. This act was negligent because the caller irresponsibly assumed that the police would treat the black suspects in this case fairly (as they would treat the general population). Such an assumption was irresponsible on the caller's part because she unreasonably failed to consider the numerous, wrongful racially motivated incidents and shootings between the police and the black community not only in Boston but throughout the country (though you would probably have to limit it to Boston). Thus, the caller in this case could not find protection under the GS statute unless the homeowner were actually white (the argument assumes that it is likely that the police could mistake a black homeowner for a black suspect). I believe this is the logic but it is very dangerous because it would mean that describing someone as "black" to the police would be akin to a committing a form of assault against them (you could assume the police would mistreat them based on other incidents). It would be very difficult to prevail on this logic (thus a bad argument) because it would require tons of judicial notice.
Everyone who is getting so angry at Elie for his terrible legal argument, save your breath. I am in the building across the street and I can see him smearing chocolate all over himself through the window. He is not reading any of your comments!
WHO CARES?
If I can summarize all of the statements thus far: all of you seem to have somewhat divergent viewpoints, but you all seem to agree unreservedly on one fact surrounding the Gates scandal, namely that: the Class of 2011 is the lost generation.
209: Uh, if you're trying to pick someone out of a crowd or identify them, race is one of the descriptors you use. It's used by 911 emergency operators, the police in general, the FBI, etc. It's just asinine to say that because there have been past incidents between blacks and the police, you're therefore not allowed to include the description, it was two black males (instead of two males, or heck, two people) prying open a door. Hell, there have been run-ins between males and the police -- therefore, you can't use the description "male" either!
This type of thinking is absolutely absurd, and leads to the conclusion that you can't ever provide any description of a person that includes a characteristic that has ever had any systematic problems dealing with the police. Then, you're down to, "well, it was two people -- I can't describe them any further..." Not exactly helpful for the police in terms of identifying the two guys. And, when in most cases, two guy prying open a door is a legitimate crime -- your inability to describe them probably just let them get away / get away with the owner's property.
Elie, you're fired.
-Lat.
No, seriously. Get the fuck out.
This just in from Obama - after being asked what role race played in him stating that the cops "acted stupidly":
"I don’t know, even though I was there and know all the facts, what role race played in my statement. But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry with me; No. 2, that I acted stupidly in maligning somebody when there was no proof that they acted improperly; and, No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of paranoid African-Americans and Latinos hating law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact."
Lat PWND Elie. Now get rid of him. He's an embarassing blight on your website.
Even Jesse Jackson admitted: ""There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
It's a fact that Blacks commit proportionally more crime than Whites. The caller probably did factor in race when she decided the circumstances were suspicious enough to call the police. But that wasn't racism, it was statistics. Seems like the Rev. Jackson would feel the same way.
Would someone please explain to Elie the difference between objective and subjective standards? Although he acknowledges that to lose Good Samaritan protection reckless, wanton, or willful behavior is required, he later uses exclusively language of negligence (reasonable person would have; or reasonable person should have). The whole point of requiring reckless, willful, or wanton behavior is to shield merely negligent behavior from liability. So even if police misconduct is so inevitable that reasonable people don't call the police, the 911 caller would not lose good samaritan protection unless, at a minimum, she were SUBJECTIVELY aware of it and proceeded anyway (recklessness). I think I learned this 1L year.
Just a suggestion:
Could we PLEASE have Lat smack Elie around like this once a week? There is clearly enough material for it, and it could bring some respectability back to ATL.
The great and wonderful Lat hath spoken! Praise be to God on high!
Someone should night stick 204 / 206 / 208 / 209 for using all of that black ink. Wait . . . not because it's black! Any color, any color!
215: And, glad to see that the White House is taking the higher, more mature road on dealing with follow-ups to Obama's statement too:
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html
---
"Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed a suggestion that the backlash from police groups could be distressing to the White House, given that Obama has enjoyed a positive relationship with the law enforcement community.
"I think the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain," Gibbs fired back, referring to Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 election. "If I'm not mistaken."
When a reporter pointed out that Obama had won the support of the Policemen's Benevolent Association, Gibbs conceded: "We got some."
---
Basically, so if police = McCain suppporters, then said police = racist. But if some police = Obama supporters, then they're okay. This is the level of discourse that our presidential administration is producing. So much for all those claims that Obama being elected would take the edge of race relations problems.
213 - true story:
When I was in law school, there was a guy who kept mugging undergrad students as they walked to their cars late at night. The campus police released a description, but nowhere in the description was the perp's race revealed. We were told to just be on the lookout for a man between 5'8" and 6' and who wore a dark clothing.
Political Correctness in this country has gotten out of hand.
And yes, the perp was black.
Wow. I can't believe I'm actually surprised that given the opportunity to take cheap shots and generally be assholes, the commentors on this blog would not take it and then some. I don't check the comments often, but this is a new low.
Elie, I disagree with your argument, but marvel at your courage in making it in this kind of forum. I do think the woman who called the police, and later stood outside Professor Gates' home rubbernecking and watching this unfold while doing nothing to reverse the mischief she had caused is much closer to jerk than hero in this story.
I don't think your legal argument is very strong, but appreciate that you are at least trying to give the social policy point a much needed airing. It is about time that people in this country (who are not African American or Hispanic men) realized that it is worth a second of their time to consider that the police, who generally perform their task to serve and protect (white) citizens admirably, as an institution are not a body men of color can rely on. Far from it. As a child, I was brought up to believe (firmly) that the police were our friends and the public's protectors and advocates. Male black and hispanic children are by necessity taught the opposite lesson. My husband is a black man and although I haven't been there every time he's been stopped or harassed by the police, you'd best believe that it is a realistic fear for me that I could lose my spouse because a member of the police department overreacted to his using a cell phone while black. It is not just that "the police" aren't the first people that spring to mind when a black man needs help, it is that this incident underlines the arrogance, hostility and even threat that black men of every class face from the police on a routine basis. I think this incident has hit a nerve with black people because state actors strolled into a black person's home, behaved disgracefully and tried to humiliate a law-abiding citizen before threatening his liberty.
I think Elie's argument -- that perhaps a white bystander could have thought for a moment that while the police are _supposed_ to protect the citizenry, they are likelier than not to racially profile, overreact toward and generally disproportionately harrass black men-- is valid. Especially given the fact that this particular bystander continued to...bystand through the entire incident and apparently did nothing to intervene when it got out of hand.
In principle, I don't think it is too much to ask that a person truly trying to be a Good Samaritan take one moment to empathize and be realistic about how the world works before hiding behind a naive sense of how the world should work and asking to be congratulated for "helping." At the very least, this person could have stepped forward at any point after it became clear that a black man was being harassed in his own home by the police she had called (since she was standing, presumably mouth agape, on the sidewalk outside anyway), and tried to diffuse the situation, provide clarification to the (confused?stupid?racist?zealous?) police or point out their error.
209-
And it would place "Black" outside of the law and no person (black or white or asian, etc.) could ever call the cops on a black person without themselves assuming the risk of whatever police action would follow. What if the police tazed (taserd?) a suspect who was beating his wife but an internal investigation revealed the cops acted unreasonably. The argument treats cops like they are mad dogs without a leash.
I don't care how much Lat trashed Elie. Everyone by now knows and expects this kind of baiting from Elie. The fact that Lat allowed this to go up reflects very poorly on him.
It don't matter if you're black or white, say it with me people: the Class of 2011 is the lost generation.
If I fail the bar, do I have to pay to re-take barbri in Jan?
The Cabbed Caller can be held liable under a strict liability theory because calling the police on Gates is racism per se.
224 shall now be night sticked as well.
-221
Better question, did the officer have probable cause to be in the house and does the plain sight rule apply if he saw say Mr. Gates unregistered Surface to Air Missle and arrested him for poession of it?
"At the very least, this person could have stepped forward at any point after it became clear that a black man was being harassed in his own home by the police she had called (since she was standing, presumably mouth agape, on the sidewalk outside anyway), and tried to diffuse the situation"
Maybe if Gates wasn't so much of a douchebag to explain where the other (read, the cabbie) person was, this would never have happened.
Is that too much to ask of anyone?
"At the very least", Really, you have the fucking gall to make that point.
At the very least Gates shouldn't have been such a dickhead, do you not understand that? Moron.
224: And, here comes the empathy argument. Fine, it's something worth considering in the back of your head, but you're honestly trying to say that when confronted with facts that 99% of the time are going to be a burglary or robbery, you should in any way hesitate to call the police because the suspects are black, and that might be given a hard time in the event that the officer in question is racist? This is a pretty attenuated argument, and given an emergency situation where there's a likely burglary / robbery taking place, while you sit there and deliberate the pros and cons of calling the police, said burglars / robbers have hit a bunch of different apartments, houses, and have already made their getaway.
And lastly, the police showed up to Gates' house to check out anyone potentially trying to burglarize it. As other posters have pointed out, there was a burglary there before (explaining the compromised condition of the door) and burglaries regularly occur during the daytime. Somehow, I don't think Gates would have been particularly thankful had the two men been burglars, someone seen the incident, but not called in because the two suspects were black, and they didn't want to subject themselves to a charge of racism by phoning in a suspicious behavior report that happened to involve two black guys. Gates himself supported the making of the police call -- I don't understand why Elie is so determined to make an argument that not even Gates, the purported victim, supports.
Lat,
I don't know if this whole article by you and Elie was to bait readers or not.
Nonetheless, I am done with the website you founded and let go to shit in the hands of a racist idiot.
Off to the WSJ Law Blog for good. Might not be as juicy, but at least it's not racist and offensive to my intelligence.
Seriously. Good Day.
Here's the real question: will Gates regret causing Obama's approval ratings to plummet? Obama's "stupid" comment will provoke either an apology from Obama or a public backlash stirred up by the police unions. Neither option is good for Obama's ratings.
It doesn't help that the black officer present at the time of arrest is backing the arresting officer 100%.
Nor does it help that you can now buy Chia Obama (www.chiaobama.com).
Elie, why the ambulance chaser mentality?
209 - have you ever heard a 911 call? It's one of the first things they ask you, because it's a method of physically identifying someone. Fail.
232: Yeah, I have the gall
233: The point is that a moment's thought (broad daylight, front door, cab parked in front of the house, both men carrying LUGGAGE) would have dropped the 99% assumption to a far lower number. Even if she feared for her safety, she could have called the police then taken 3 steps forward from the pavement, where she was watching this whole incident, and own up that she and the police had made a mistake.
Obviously, the police are the problem here, but this woman is no heroine.
Chia Obama is racist.
There is no cause of action under the statute, I agree. But if you aren't elligible for the statute's protection, you are per se reckless (or acting intentionally), which is sufficient for tort liability. I think that's perhaps what Elie is getting at.
Of course, this still doesn't resolve liability for the caller. We need to know one of: the caller's intent to injure Gates, the caller's knowledge of a substantial liklihood of injury to Gates, or if a reasonable person would have recognized a substantial liklihood of injury to gates and the caller disregarded it (i.e., was reckless). Bear in mind that injury requires that Gates not be a burglar, as arrest of an actual burglar is not legally cognizable injury. So, did the caller know or should the caller have known that Gates was the owner of the house and that a call to the police would result in his improper arrest? I see no evidence of such knowledge or reckless disregard for evidence of the same.
1. Lat was speaking to hundreds of federal judges at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference this week. That would explain why he didn't see Elie's post before it went up on Wednesday.
So he did the next best thing - turned it into traffic crack. I agree with 27. This post is flame.
2. Remember who chose Elie? We the Readers did, through ATL Idol.
234 - That's fine, vote with your feet. If there is a traffic decline, that is something Lat will notice.
I emailed Lat to complain about Elie once. Lat responded by saying that traffic has grown tremendously since Elie took over ATL.
Subjective opinions don't matter to a blog overseer. Traffic does.
Timeout. Everyone here is overlooking an extremely important fact. In a CNN interview, Gates explicitly stated he was thankful for his neighbor who called the police and hopes that in the future with similar circumstances that she would call the police again.
234
come back. i was just kidding. I thought it was ok for me to say those things because I'm Black too.
178 - Maybe you are trying to be sarcastic. But it is probably the case that the editor of Above the Law has more influence over the legal profession than a random partner at a random firm.
Not overlooking 243. Just not as important as you think.
101 - In Lat's defense, he also discovered some very good writers (all female, interestingly):
-- Roxana (of Breadline)
-- Marin (of Pls Hndle Thx)
-- Laurie (of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch)
-- Kashmir Hill (of untold wealth)
238:
As has been established in the previous post, no, carrying luggage with you doesn't necessarily reduce the chance of you being a burglar. As some other poster pointed out, burglars often disguise themselves as a resident, a mover, a repairman, someone / anyone with legitimate business at the house / residence so that they won't be accosted and can get away with the burglary more easily. And, the Gates cab was a private car -- we're not talking about a brightly colored yellow cab.
Finally, she called the police and fulfilled her duty. The police had already established that Gates was an actual resident of the house. Gates got arrested for disorderly conduct, not for breaking & entering or burglary. Once she called the police, it's none of her business, and she should let the police do their job. In a combustible situation, it doesn't help the situation at all to have random bystanders and observers interjecting themselves into the situation -- that just makes the police more paranoid because now, they have to watch out for another person who could exacerbate the situation. There's no "owning up" because she appropriately phoned in what looked like it could have been a burglary and the police properly investigated. In the legal world, we don't judge reasonable behavior by the results (were you actually right or not) -- Elie made this incorrect statement as well.
If I fail the bar, do I have to pay to re-take barbri in Jan?
That Elie could have been admitted to Harvard is a travesty. That Blahma is trying to engage in reparations politics without calling it "reparations" and instead seeks to turn this nation's social and financial structure upside down as his way of sticking it to "whitey" is reprehensible and MUST be condemned. A president may not be allowed to act in a hateful manner in order to promote one socio-economic group over all others. He MUST be challenged, and Elie must join the unemployed rolls.
you people are all idiots!
THE PROPER TORT IS ABUSE OF PROCESS AND IT WOULD APPLY IF THE CALLER INTENTIONALLY TRIED TO SCREW GATES AND MADE UP OR EXAGGERATED THE ALLEGATIONS
You guys have changed my mind. You're totally right. The Cambridge police are geniuses and the real racists (and lets face it, dimwits) are Barack Obama and Skip Gates. Thanks!
BLACK PRESIDENT
BLACK GOVERNOR
BLACK MAYOR
All shouting about the atrocities committed against a privileged black Harvard professor. How ironic.
Black leaders in America are missing this opportunity to put racism behind us and are deepening the divide. Quit playing the race card and LET'S MOVE ON!!!
246-
No, I think you missed my point. That kind of statement completely destroys any kind of argument Elie is making here. Not that there was any decent argument there from Elie in the first place, but this is the nail in the coffin. Worse, actually. This is the grass being planted on the dirt that's already been thrown on the coffin in its grave.
248: Saying it is none of her business after she called the police is absolving someone (who made a misjudgment) of responsibility for a situtation she instigated. If she truly felt it was none of her business, why did she stand there gawking at the whole thing? I find it ironic that the "public" Gates was accused of being disorderly in front of (on his own porch) was the gaggle of backup cops and rubberneckers (including the good samaritan). I agree it doesn't help for random bystanders to interject themselves into situations like these. She was not a random bystander. While I appreciate you clueing me into what happens in "the legal world," I am, in fact making a moral and practical argument.
Actually, 205, given that Elie has not come up in the NY bar search page for at least two years now (he didn't know why when asked), and rapidly departed Debevoise, I'm not sure that we can conclude that he did pass the NY bar.
Elie should go work for Blahma. Both have Harvard degrees and no clue what they are doing.
253
But then they couldnt get under-privileged minorities to vote for them in the next election. Your suggestion - while admirable - presumes those people care about anything more than votes.
As a minority, I agree with you, and I think it is a sad state of affairs.
187, note that affirmative action does not apply to Asians. This helps explain the shocking disparity in intelligence between Lat and Elie, both of whom went to the top law schools in the nation. Lat got into Yale because he deserved it; Elie got into Harvard because he's black.
im studying for the bar, so the theory of negligent hiring quickly comes to mind....
Lat, you should a "guest" bench-slapping of someone's retarded legal arguments every week.
Sure, most weeks it would be Elie, but every once in a while someone else could get the slapping.
..." (who made a misjudgment) of responsibility for a situtation she instigated. "
Have you even began to pay attention to this story? The only instigation was by Gates (and note the new AP story, Obama is backing off bigtime).
I hope you live in a place where your neighbors don't care about your property.
The story is over. You lost.
Gates looks like the long-lost brother of Peter Kalis at K&L Gates.
Gates looks like the long-lost brother of Peter Kalis at K&L Gates.
How is "victim of a crime" defined? Since no burglary occurred, there is no crime, and certainly no victim of a crime.
You all just got trolled by both Elie and Lat. How dumb are you people?
Stupid fat lazy pig.
Elie - YOU ARE A DISGRACE. I don't think you realize how far out on your preposterous limb you are. I don't understand how you can't be supremely embarrassed putting your name on such slanderous, sophomoric logic. You aren't an Attorney because you are incapable of independent thought. Not by choice.
Elie, you and Gates are both a f'ing disgrace to Harvard. Now, forgive me, b/c I should know this, but is Harvard Law an ABA accredited school?
255: Once she phoned the matter into the police, it became police business -- we're talking about a potential criminal matter between the state and a private citizen. I see your point, but given she had no personal stake in the matter (it wasn't her apartment, she has no relationship with Gates or for that matter, the police who investigated the incident), her presence at the scene wouldn't have accomplished anything.
By the time that Gates and the cop were leaving the house, it was already clear that Gates wasn't a burglar, and that it was his house. The only thing taking place at that moment (in dispute) was that Gates was starting to get overly belligerent with the cop, yelling, etc. At this point in the matter, what is the again, random except for the fact that she phoned in the incident, going to do / say to help the matter? She didn't witness the interactions between Gates and the cop inside the house. Unless it really was loud yelling by Gates, she didn't hear what he said to the cop.
I just have no idea what you think having the woman approaching the arguing Gates and cop would have accomplished practically speaking. All that would have happened would have been the cop telling the woman that he was in the process of investigating the situation / just had finished investigating the situation and that her presence was neither needed nor encouraged at that moment. Again, cops don't appreciate random (again, random because she has no relationship to Gates, the house, or anything else) bystanders getting involved in police matters.
Elie, your complete lack of familiarity with common standards of liability and causes of action is just sad. You should have just said nothing because you've not given everybody solid proof of what they have been saying since you came onto ATL: that you can't be a lawyer for shit.
If I saw two men of any race (and probably even two women) trying to forcefully shove through the front door of a house -- and some articles have also mentioned that a crowbar was involved -- I would call the police over obvious concern of a break-in. It's really not that crazy of a jump.
Hey Hey Hey it's fat Elie. Maybe Bill Cosby will do the voice.
272 = racist
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. ATL has failed to update the press conference that happened an hour ago where Obama had called Sgt Crowley.
It remains to be seen whether Obama's half-assed equivocation will pacify the police unions. My guess is that the police will continue to demand an apology.
I am not voting for that racist Obama in 2012. He just demonstrated what an elitist he is. Fuck liberals. Nice phase, bring W. back
In California, at least, the issue would not be analyzed under the "Good Samaritans" stature at all, but under the litigation privilege.
In my state, reports to police are absolutely privileged unless rising to the level of the common law tort of malicious prosecution--which does not apply on its face (the neighbor was not actively instrumental in having the professor prosecuted (let alone without probable cause), the professor was not in fact prosecuted, and the was no favorable termination.
But police officers are trained to, and expected to, remain professional in the face of agitated and obnoxious citizens--particularly citizens in their own home.
The cop here lost his cool, the professor committed no crime, and the officer's perception that the professor was behaving “suspiciously" on several levels is not relevant.
The professor got in the cop's face, the cop did not like his authority being questioned in that way, and he made a wrongful arrest without probable cause.
I doubt it was motivated by racial animus on the cop's part, but wrongful it was.
I hereby award the professor $7,500 in damages.
Next case.
278=freaked out CA bar examinee.
Holy shit, 169 is dumber than Elie!
What?? Louis Gossett Jr. got arrested??????
What?? Louis Gossett Jr. got arrested??????
204- Keen grasp of the stale. Welcome to the party.
Calling the police when a person is forcing open a door to a house where you do not know the owner (and thus could not recognize him) is FAR from "willful, wanton or reckless conduct." (1 point) So So far away that all reasonably prudent persons would agree (-1/4 point)
her conduct as is, was not the problem, it was the fact she probably would not have called the cops on (2 points) Sunstein and his driver. But that does not fall under this statute (1/3 point).
Can we stick to legal news rather than stupid hypotheticals? You have not shown me the requisite intelligence or thoughtfulness or wit for me to care about your opinion.
Surely there must be a better way for ATL to get lots of comments to its articles.
Holy shit, Elie, you are the poster child for the anti-affirmative action movement. Nice going.
HOLY SHIT!
It took until 251 for someone to even come close to naming the only potential cause of action (Abuse of Process) Gates would have against the woman. Of course, she probably would have had to know who he was and that it was his own home, but still, it's the only possible argument.
Elie and everyone else who tried to argue negligence or some other inane theory: ABSOLUTE FAIL. (And Lat, really, you should have picked up on this as well, though to be fair, it had nothing to do with Elie's "negligence" argument.) Do real, practicing lawyers come on this blog?
Seriously, Lat, Elie is a major drag on your blog. I know you're keeping him on because he wouldn't be able to find a real job in the legal world, but with all due respect, he's an embarassment to your blog and your sense of judgment. Get rid of him.
Oh, to be fair it might actually be closer to a Malicious Prosecution claim rather than Abuse of Process, but it really depends on the jurisdiction. Either way, negligence is a fail (for reasons outlined by Lat and 100 other commentors); intentional torts are the only possible COA.
- 287
Mass Statute:
ALM GL ch. 269, § 13A (2009)
§ 13A. Intentional or Knowing False Report of a Crime.
Whoever intentionally and knowingly makes or causes to be made a false report of a crime to police officers shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than one year, or both.
Regarding the hypo -- Gates would have to prove the neighbor intentionally or knowingly made a false report to police. Otherwise, no cause of action against the neighbor with these facts.
Elie, nice job inciting the haters. They responded in droves like bees to honey. The copious amount of venom spewed by this gang [lynch mob], not the least bit surprising.
159 - nicely done.
224:
Finally an intelligent comment. I'm getting to thing that all of these ignorant, racist comments are being written by the same person. Maybe some former biglaw Federalist Society freak who got laid off and has nothing better to do than to sit home all day in his parents' basement, jerk off and write right-wing, racist comments on Above the Law, making them look as if they have different authors to give credence to far right views.
103: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
103:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
Elie's post is the most horrific, idiotic, nonsensical piece of crap legal argument I have ever read. Ever. Using his retarded logic, I am going to hold him liable for damaging my brain with that hypersensitive "I'm a black man" crap. It's... it's really just absurd at how stupid that was. He CAN'T be that retarded.
To all you idiots who are "defending" Elie and applauding him for spewing this horrible, horrible shitty argument because he's making some kind of social commentary, for the love of all things holy take a second to stem the flow of blood from your bleeding heart and think. Elie is WRONG. He's an idiot for making that argument. If a retarded kid runs over a crowd of people by stealing a bus you don't applaud him for bringing up the issue of retardation in America, you say "what the fuck!? Who let that kid drive?!" The idea that it is somehow rational to assume that police officers (who some of you will be shocked to are occasionally BLACK themselves! *GASP*) would automatically overreact when they saw a black man - just categorically - is so retarded it' impressive.
So, I say now, what the fuck, Lat? Who let Elie drive? Please fire him. It hurts my head how stupid that was.
"I'm getting to thing (sic) that all of these ignorant, racist comments are being written by the same person"
No, they aren't, in a country of damn near 300 million people, there are a few that have a brain, there isn't anything ignorant or racist about criticizing Supefuck (Elie) and his idiotic stance. Do you really believe a citizen should face civil liability for reporting an event to the cops?
287,
see 179
I would tend to believe that Gates was acting in a bellicose fashion, without provocation from the police.
Looks at the facts.
He had just returned from China, was totally jet-lagged, and by his own admission, had a bronchial infection, and on top of this, he was undoubtedly extremely frustrated after being locked out of his own house for 15+ minutes.
Also, the police also said that they questioned him on whether there was another man in the house (because the lady had reported seeing 2 men). Gates probably saw this question as a ridiculous question, and an invasion of his privacy, and became even angrier.
I could totally see him snapping under those circumstances and becoming a raging lunatic like the police described.
295:
You wrote:
"To all you idiots who are 'defending' Elie . . ."
To all of which idiots? Have you read the freaking board. You right wing ideologues are outnumbering normal people 20-1. I can find like three pro-Elie postings. You people are delusional. If I wanted to be indoctrinated by right-wing wackos I'd listen to Rush Fatbaugh.
mysTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTal
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
299
295 here. Add your post and that makes four.
"Also, the police also said that they questioned him on whether there was another man in the house (because the lady had reported seeing 2 men). Gates probably saw this question as a ridiculous question, and an invasion of his privacy,"
If that's the case, Gates is dumber than a fucking bag of hammers given that he knew his driver tried to help him in the front entrance. How would that be a ridiculous question to anyone that isn't a fucking retard?
Face it, every attempt to explain his (abysmal) behavior just leads to more questions.
"Also, the police also said that they questioned him on whether there was another man in the house (because the lady had reported seeing 2 men). Gates probably saw this question as a ridiculous question, and an invasion of his privacy,"
If that's the case, Gates is dumber than a fucking bag of hammers given that he knew his driver tried to help him in the front entrance. How would that be a ridiculous question to anyone that isn't a fucking retard?
Face it, every attempt to explain his (abysmal) behavior just leads to more questions.
88 - I'm a big lib who generally assumes most cops are racist and/or corrupt in some way and even I think the facts don't look good for Gates. another neighbor (not the one who called) said Gates flew off the handle to moment the police arrived--immediately started screaming about racism and generally being beligerent.
You're right--there is nothing illegal about talking back to a police officer, but if your behavior causes the officer to reasonably fear for his and everyone else's safety, then you should expect to get arrested.
While I agree with Lat and everybody else that Elie's musings on the neighbor's potential liability are living proof as to why he isn't cut out to be a lawyer, I am equally stunned by the stupidity of those posters who believe that the police officer was legally entitled to arrest Professor Gates.
If you don't understand why the First Amendment allowed Gates to protest what he viewed as abusive governmental conduct in his own home and even to go out onto his porch and continue to voice his protest short of using profane language or threatening someone with violence, please surrender your license to practice law. You should also do the world a favor and have yourself sterilized.
Dear 10,
Maybe if the cop wasn't such an insecure prick on a power trip who couldn't handle being questioned by a man in his own home, this wouldn't have happened.
P.S. If you are thinking of becoming an attorney at some point in the future, you might want to consider studying First Amendment cases a little harder than your peers who are much smarter than you.
Dear 29,
Please tell me you just happened upon this site while looking for porn. You are comparing "coming after him with a stick" to being a loudmouth? You don't understand how HUGE a difference there is between the two? Why one is illegal and one is protected by the Constitution?
Go back to looking for porn, because you have contributed nothing to this discussion.
30 is absolutely correct. It doesn't matter if the cop arrested Gates because of his race. The real reason Gates was arrested was because he was talking back, which is legal in every state in the US.
34 said: "Retired partner here: Gosh Elie, I've been offended by much of the crap spewed out about you by many of the posters here. I don't know you, but you seem to be a guy simply trying to pay the bills. Anyway, you are way off base on this. It's just plain crazy to think the lady did anything wrong. Gates backtalked a cop, plain and simple, and he got what he deserved. The cop was dumb to take Gates in, but he had every right to do so. Gates is just another big mouth race baiter of the worst sort. Obama really put his foot in his mouth when he called the cop stupid, particularly considering how much he needs the support of white moderates in order to pass his healthcare plan."
First off, "Retired partner"? So you obviously found at least one other person as idiotic as you who was willing to share the risk of liability resulting from your inability to grasp the most basic of legal concepts.
"Gates backtalked a cop, plain and simple, and he got what he deserved." Really? What's the penalty for backtalking where you come from? Can I sue my neighbor for backtalking or should I call the cops and tell them to arrest him like they arrested Gates? You dolt.
"The cop was dumb to take Gates in, but he had every right to do so." What "right" was that? Was that anywhere near the First Amendment that gives people the right to peacefully protest government action without fear of arrest? If Gates had said these exact same things in a protest as he and others marched down the street, would the police be within their rights to arrest him there, too? Does putting it this way make it clearer for you? You make me sick and I seriously hope that you have fully retired from the practice of law because it's not something you're good at.
42 said: "I would arrest anyone who pulls the "do you know who I am" shit or plays the race card."
Good for you; you are smart enough to be a cop in Cambridge, at least until you get the city sued for vioating people's rights. Too bad you're not smart enough to be a lawyer.
46: "Everyone with a week of legal education and half a brain who has commented to any of the GaTTTes articles has reasonably and logically concluded that GaTTTes acted like a fucking retard."
If what the police officer says is 100% true (and, of course, police never lie in their reports), then yes, Gates was acting inappropriately. Now remind me again, what's the penalty for acting like a retard? Isn't there some law somewhere that would protect Gates' right to protest police conduct, whether or not that protest was justified? It's on the tip of my tongue... the First... something or other.
56 said: "Gates is a racist douchebag.
"Same thing would have happened if it were a black cop and a white resident who yelled at him: he would get arrested on disorderly conduct."
So when the KKK holds a rally and they're speaking through BULLHORNS and they're calling the black people around them (including the black cops) all sorts of horrible names, the cops are alolowed to arrest the KKK members for "disorderly conduct"? Oh, I get it. You're an ass.
Thanks Lat. That was great.
312 - You are comparing apples and oranges. Core political speech (as heinous as the speech may be) is entitled to more First Amendment protection than "I'll speak to your mama outside."
311,
There is no crime for "acting inappropriately," you stinky douchebag.
Elie, I'm amazed you could write so much about the MA Good Samaritan Statute, given that STEP 0 would have been realizing it didn't provide for a cause of action.
Lat writes very well. Very impressive.
I still say Gates broke into the house
Lat – you would have made a great practicing attorney and biglaw partner somewhere, but props to you for getting out of the rat race early.
Elie – you would never make it out there in the world of actually practicing law. Can you imagine if a clear-thinking client had seen this argument show up in their pleading?
Dear 306,
Which part of the First Amendment allows someone who was breaking into a home to yell at the police when they arrive in response to a 911 call, continuously accuse them of being racists, speak about their mothers, follow them out and continue to yell at them, and ignore three warnings to stop yelling and harassing the officer?
That must be part of this "living" document -- you know, the part you are making up and contorting to meet your dumb-a-- needs.
Have your opinion, leave *my* Constitution out of it.
Elie, you don't need any legal knowledge whatsoever to understand that the Good Samaritan Statute doesn't provide a cause of action. It goes back to the basic if, then, contrapositive, etc. logic that was tested on the LSAT:
Breaking the Statute down into a very simplistic form, it says: If acted in good faith, not liable b/c of the statute (If G, not L). The only other implication would be the contrapositive (If L, not G) or if you were liable under the statute, then you must not have acted in good faith.
Somehow, you feel that the statute also says the inverse (If not G, L) or if you don't act in good faith, then you're liable under the statute. Logically speaking, that simply cannot be derived from the statute as written -- merely because a statement implies something does not mean that the statement also implies the inverse.
So are we all agreed that Elie is done here? Since he's been here, he has done everything a person could unintentionally do to drive a once-great site into the ground. And now, this.
you have to believe that lat derived quite a bit of pleasure from this awful awful smackdown.
elie's dumbass argument could have been dispelled in one sentence: the statute is a shield, not a sword so you can't be held liable under it... but somehow that wouldn't be as satisfying, would it?
HELLO. Ever heard of Kitty Genovese? You guys really are balancing the interests well on this one. Legal geniuses...
324: Who do you mean by "you guys"? 95%+ of the posters disagree with Elie and understand why we ought to encourage people to report potential criminal behavior and emergencies to the police. Only Elie (and maybe half a dozen or less posters at best) seem to be suggesting that it's a bad idea to be proactive about calling the police / reporting a potential incident because of the potential risk of racist police officers or something similarly convoluted.
And, that's the whole point of Good Samaritan Statutes as well -- many people are already very hesitant to report incidents to the police, so we remove one barrier by saying that as long as they acted in good faith, they can't be held liable for being mistaken.
Kudos to Lat for being so blunt with the response to Elie's utterly bizarre comments and theories. Every time Elie puts finger to keyboard he makes a stronger case for why affirmative action is a failure. Elie's legal reasoning skills are about as sophisticated as a fortune cookie's, maybe less. The experiment failed, Elie. You were given admission to Harvard Law and you failed at Debevoise and now you have failed at something terribly simple, writing for a legal blog. There's one place left for you, a place that welcomes race baiting dunces who wouldn't know the law from a donut hole...ACORN. Community Organizing, it's what Affirmative Action babies do.
well, to be fair, community organizing and being president,
"The Cabbed Caller knows, or should have known, that the police would overreact to the situation she presented them with. It was incumbent upon her to take her head out of the sand and engage with the world as it is, not as she would like it to be."
I just can't imagine leaving Harvard Law School and making statements like this. I tried to think, under what possible circumstances could all of the legal training and reading I experienced at a top law school allow my mind to entertain thoughts as alien to our system of laws as these ones, and I could not think of a single circumstance that would facilitate such buffoonery.
It's mind boggling. Think about how extraordinarily moronic those two sentences are. A random person on the street witnessing what she thought was criminal activity "should have known" (!!!!) that the police would arrive after she contacted them, and then proceed to arrest an innocent person! Imagine thinking this, in earnest, in your own mind! And not only that, but to suggest that the law (ANY law, anywhere, in any jurisdiction in the country) REQUIRES the woman to make a split second analysis and conclusion of the liberal opinion of race in America, lest she open herself up to liability!
Elie, you don't take to heart anything critical your readership has to say about you, but hear this, for the umpteenth time today: You are unintelligent. You were never be, are not now, and will never be, fit to practice law. You are an affirmative action disaster, beyond any shadow of a doubt, now. You should resign your post, because you just are not, objectively speaking, fit to edit a legal blog. Be content with your simian ramblings on TrueSlant or whatever it's called, and leave ATL alone.
Go!
Hey, forget the legalities. In human terms, we all need to watch out for and care each other. Are you all too young to remember the Kitty Genovese murder?
Catherine Susan Genovese (July 7, 1935[1]– March 13, 1964), commonly known as Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York on March 13, 1964.[3] Genovese was buried in a family grave at Lakeview Cemetery in New Canaan, Connecticut.
The circumstances of her murder and the supposed lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware, but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (seldom: "Genovese syndrome")[4] and especially diffusion of responsibility.
Can we speak to this side of the issue, please?
ELIE YOU ARE A DONUT.
If you see someone who appears to be breaking into another's home, you call the cops. PERIOD. END OF STORY. You don't scream, or attempt to stop them yourself & endanger yourself.
Guys, it's all very simple really. If you see a person who appears to be committing a crime, you are not supposed to call the police if that person is black. You don't want to be a RACIST, do you?
Apparently that's good for the black community. Ignore the fact that black criminals hurt black victims.
Change we can believe in.
Lat=Fonzie on motorcycle
Elie=Fonzie on waterskis
Lat=Fonzie on motorcycle
Elie=Fonzie on waterskis
It's now clear to me that Eli's whole topic, a flimsy presentation at that, is a smokescreen to get us off the real track. The real issues, One of which is arrogance. The other, forget racism, it's classism. Gates clearly feels superior to the white, undereducated cop. Classism is what's not being discussed.
Lat = the real world
Elie = desperate grab for points on 1L torts exam
333: best comment evar.
If there were a COA for being a self-righteous jackass, Gates would clearly be liable.
Gates is an Ivy League Professorial Supremacist, which he made clear in the way he treated that cop who was simply trying to do his job.
338: White, educated males in this country have no guts, are cowards, and can't fight. I routinely chase them away from their girlfriends in bars. All I have to tell those "men" is that I am gonna knock them out cold with a kick to the liver. And they dissapear on the spot, leaving their girls behind. I then usually f>ck their girls in the a>> after letting them s>ck my ba>>s first.
339 - One day you'll come across one of us white, educated males who conceal carry. Won't that be fun!
Haha... 339 thinks he a thug.
How bout you come to my hood homie and we'll see who the real man is?
OK, here's a point that doens't have to do with Elie. The President of the United States is a former legal scholar and a Harvard grad. Last week, in front of the whole country, he accused some random cop from Boston of acting "stupidly." He prefaced his rebuke in an odd way. He actually admitted that he didn't know all the facts and admitted that he's a friend of the arrestee. Hmmmm.
Where the F**K did our President learn to practice law???? Is it wise to offer an opinion 1) without knowing the facts, and 2) more importantly, while admittedly biased and with incomplete knowledge of the situation? The President is a brilliant man. I can't believe he made such an imbecilic gaffe.
342 - Where's the evidence that Obama was a "legal scholar"? Do you have some scholarship he's written that I could take a look at? And how, exactly, is Obama "brilliant"? He's a black guy that got into HLS (gee, I wonder how he managed that) and practiced law for a very short time, and in no way demonstrated to the world that he has any post-law school heightened legal acumen of any kind. Sound familiar? Remind you of anyone you might know from ATL?
So, you really shouldn't be surprised when he says something dumb. Elie is a black HLS grad who practiced law very briefly before bailing on the profession, just like Obama, and he says stunningly moronic things regularly. This post being merely one of those moronic things.
Ok, your readers are ill informed and could learn much. I'm not surprised by their lack of enlightenment. It seems par for the course for Americans who lack any understanding of their own history.
A more informed reading of history would in fact offer an interesting legal question about the culpability of witnesses who fail to act reasonably or engage the question of recklessness in light of the national debacle that resulted from the neighbor's misinformed call.
Imagine the person who cries wolf--or fire--where there is smoke--but also the smell of grilling in the air, diverting resources from the real fire in town. Because your readers are convinced about Blacks frequently committing crimes, on that day the police then failed to bring in the real crime-breakers, because they spent 4 hours with Gates.
Or imagine the person who phones the police to respond to someone looking like Carl Rove, breaking into Rove's house, with Rove's suitcase on the porch, and Rove's taxi at the curb in front of his residence. It would be unlikely that the Rove look-alike, would take a taxi to the break in, even less likely that a taxi driver who cares about his job (in these hard times) would help this random rider break into the home of someone else.
But you would have to be living under a rock and recklessly ignorant to not be aware that phoning the police about your black neighbor--who looks just like the man entering the house might cause a firestorm, including his arrest and possible physical harm.
In this case, how odd that someone who looked like Gates, 5'7, gray hair, cane, etc, should be trying to push his way into the house of the guy with gray hair, who happens to be about 5'7, and walks with a cane. I would imagine that precisely because this is Harvard's campus that such calls would be given even greater attention and the subject of the call (Rove or Gates) even greater scrutiny.
Your soon to be lawyers who read this blog seem to show no investigative skill. Shouldn't Whalen have questioned whether a burglar breaks in with his own luggage? Or that burglars bring taxis to the places they burglarize?
Now some of you will lose your jobs--such a choppy economy tells us so. You may be forced to use clearer reasoning, and step out of your esoteric zones. When you do, you may be forced (by economic hardship), to take on clients less fortunate than the rather illustrious Gates. When you do, and if the desire to be successful means anything, you will have to use better logic than what you transmit or reveal on this blog.
To gain a fuller understanding as to why a discourse could emerge about a recklessness standard being plausible for litigation in such contexts, you would have to know about your own US history.
Undoubtedly many of you may have been asleep during the sessions on the antebellum period, Jim Crow, civil rights, etc.
For the few of you who were awake or care to learn, you may find a history replete with examples that indicate why it would be reckless, in light of the facts involved, that Whalen would call the police, and not intervene again once she realized it was the professor's home. You know she does work for Harvard Magazine, which has featured Gates on its cover...and she stood on the sidewalk while all this occurred and her mistake was revealed.
I suggest that you start by reading:
-Al Brophy's work, Reconstructing the Dreamland: The Tulsa Riot of 1921, Race, Reparations, Reconciliation (Oxford University Press, 2002
339 - Did that once happen in a dream you had? You are nothing more than a punk with illusions of grandeur.
As an educated white male, if you ever told me you were going to kick me in my liver I would a) call you a lowbrowed imbilice, and b) promptly let you know that I was going to eat your face.
What say you?
345 - make that a lowbrowed imbicile
Hey Elie, looks like you got some splannin to do : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/27/gates_caller_didnt_cite_race_police_say/
Are you finally going to admit you were wrong?
Have you left no sense of decency?
I came to ATL today vainly searching for a post referencing the story you cite 347. Unfortunatley, the editors (AKA Ellie) seem to have floated over that new development.
348 - I doubt the technology and/or materials exist for Elie to float over anything?
I think that this blog, and Elie in particular, need to issue a prominent correction, retraction, and apology now. Elie clearly rushed to judgement and made defamatory comments about the private individual who made the 911 call, with at least negligence as to their veracity.
It is now completely clear that the caller did not know the race of the individuals breaking and entering into the dwelling and thus was in no way motivated by the race. There definitely should be an apology forthcoming. I'm very upset that one has not yet been posted.
Getting Elie to admit he was wrong about Lucia Whalen's racist motivations is as hard as getting him to admit that he was admitted to Harvard based on the color of his skin and not on the content of his character.
Crowley needs a lawyer for his meeting. I hope they don't take advantage of him!
Crowley needs a lawyer for his meeting. I hope they don't take advantage of him!