Carol — One of the main reasons police responses to insults vary is that disorderly conduct statutes and court interpretations thereof vary. As I wrote yesterday, it’s rather likely that in Massachusetts, such a charge wouldn’t stick.

Another (more subjective) argument against the arrest is that Gates was confronted by police for doing, it turned out, nothing wrong. It’s not like Gates was speeding or trespassing, and then acted like he was entitled to do so when the cops showed up. In this situation, I think someone should get a little more leeway.

Also, here’s an example of the “cops should be able to arrest people just to assert dominance” argument, from (of course) Lawrence Auster:

Imagine a society in which people can carry on in this manner against police, and the police can do nothing except walk away with their tails between their legs. Police officers would have no respect, they would have no authority, and they wouldn’t be able to do their jobs.

The argument is not that this behavior poses some sort of actual danger or disruption to onlookers, but that police, unique among citizens, should have the right to use state-sanctioned violence to avenge rude treatment. Apparently, the right to arrest people for breaking the law, yet only for breaking the law, is an insufficient amount of “authority.”

He made a similar argument when confronted with evidence that we do in fact live in such a society, arguing that Crowley shouldn’t have had to prove that onlookers were gathering (Crowley did so only to comply with court rulings that were “wrong and baseless”).

Finally, I should note my original words on this matter: “In the Gates aftermath, we’ve seen it asserted by conservatives both that cops should use their arrest power simply to assert their dominance, and that people who disagree with cops should pick fights just because they can.” I did not say anything as to whether Crowley actually did arrest Gates to assert dominance, just that it’s been asserted he should have been able to.