The following discussion of the incident will proceed with the facts as described by the police report. In other words, the testimony of the arresting officer will, for the purposes of this analysis, be taken as entirely accurate. Based on the report filed by Sergeant Crowley, I believe that his conduct did not meet the standards of professionalism expected of him as a sworn law enforcement officer. This conclusion in no way implies support for the "loud and tumultuous" behavior of Professor Gates, nor does it even imply sympathy for him. It rests entirely on my expectations of professionalism from police officers. In fact, I have personally been treated with considerably more professionalism by police officers toward whom I was "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" while they were responding to a complaint.
Professor Gates yelled and screamed and said mean things to Sargent Crowley, before, during, and after Crowley elicited his identity as the home owner. The report makes clear, however, that Crowley's decision to arrest Gates was based on behavior exhibited AFTER his identity as the homeowner was established. It further states explicitly that he (Crowley) simply warned Gates to calm down or he would be arrested. He never, by his own accounting, expressed any sympathy for Gates' position even after it was clear that Gates had been inconvenienced by a police investigation through no fault of his own.
When Crowley made the decision to hand cuff and arrest Gates, he describes his actions as follows: "I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly... I warned Gates to calm down a second time while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case...I informed Gates that he was under arrest." Between these "warnings" Crowley describes Gates' behavior as increasingly loud and tumultuous and as drawing attention from passersby.
It's crucial to understand that Crowley was not dealing with a criminal suspect at this point. He was dealing with a law abiding citizen, a rude and offensive law abiding citizen to be sure, but one who had just been inconvenienced by a police investigation. Despite these facts, Crowley's demeanor never changed from confrontational and unsympathetic. This was not cold professionalism. Professionalism would have dictated that Crowley treat Gates with courtesy even before realizing he was innocent of wrongdoing. The courtesy expected of professional police officers does not simply mean an absence of literal malice toward citizens, it means deferential and respectful treatment of those whom you are sworn to protect.
According to his own report, Crowley never expressed sympathy or regret for having intruded on Gates in his own home. Crowley's report intentionally expresses his lack of emotion throughout. It is as if Crowley equates professionalism with insensitivity and a total absence of empathy. The problem is that when a police officer treats a citizen without emotion or empathy, he/she is also treating them without respect. This unyielding and insensitive demeanor is very unpleasant for the person on the receiving end and while it could be forgiven when a subject is a suspect, it seems clearly inappropriate and unprofessional after that same subject is found to have been both innocent and inconvenienced by a police investigation.
What's worse is that instead of leaving the scene and letting other officers (with whom Gates was not so angry) deal with the situation, Crowley stayed and kept responding to (and thereby encouraging)Gates' angry taunts until Gates' behavior had risen to what Crowley considered "disorderly conduct." Crowley knew that he was the source of Gates' anger and that, justified or not, calming him down was, or should have been, important to the successful conclusion of the matter. Had Crowley either used empathy or apology as a tactic, or simply left the scene after completing his mission, the exchange that resulted in Gates' arrest would not have happened.
The rest is just politically motivated spin on all sides and the incident is another example of the folly of umbrage and the value of understanding. We need a lot less of the former and a lot more of the latter, especially by public servants in the conduct of their duties.