. . . . because someone has successfully made the most jaw-droppingly, ear-bleedingly stupid argument that could be made about it — that the neighbor who called the cops should be liable to Gates for damages:
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."
To David Lat's substantial credit, he demolishes Elie Mystal's ridiculous argument.
Nobody comes out of this clash of entitlements looking good. Not Gates, who comes off looking like a stereotype — not of a black man, but of an Ivy League prick. Not the cop, who arrested him for what amounts to the de-facto crime of contempt of cop. And certainly not President Obama, who put the hair on the cake of his health care presser by simultaneously admitting he lacked facts to judge and then judging.
Edit to add: OK, Obama gets points for calling the cop and owning his words.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Hate Speech Debate on More Perfect Live - September 5th, 2017
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017