While his cause of death remains unknown, colleagues and friends of the late Yale assistant professor Samuel See are mobilizing in his honor.

A public demonstration scheduled for this Tuesday will protest actions taken by New Haven Police officers surrounding — and allegedly involved in precipitating — See’s death in a New Haven jail roughly two weeks ago. A Saturday email forwarded to members of the Yale faculty by Christopher Miller ’83, professor of French and African-American studies, asked concerned members of the University community to attend a march beginning at 12 p.m. in front of New Haven City Hall.

“A death in jail is a political death,” wrote the organizer of the march, Nathan Brown, an assistant professor of English at the University of California, Davis. “This is especially the case when it is the death of a gay man, given the structural and historical homophobia of policing, incarceration, and the legal system in the United States.”

The march will proceed through campus and the downtown neighborhood before ending at NHPD headquarters at 1 Union Avenue, where See was found dead on Nov. 24. See, who was on leave this semester from the English department, had been detained following a domestic dispute the previous afternoon with his husband, Sunder Ganglani.

“We need to demand answers,” Miller told the News in a Sunday email. “And the silence of Yale University in this is deafening.”

Yale Spokesman Tom Conroy could not be reached for immediate comment Sunday evening. The University issued a press statement on Nov. 27  following news of See’s death, expressing condolences to See’s family, colleagues and friends. Conroy said in an email to the News last week that Yale was in touch with police as well as state judicial officials — and focusing its efforts on providing support to those in grief.

Brown said the protest will raise questions not only about the handling of See’s arrest and incarceration but also about the validity of the information the NHPD has released on the subject. Though See’s cause of death is unknown — and will likely remain so at least until the chief state medical examiner’s office concludes its toxicology report — Brown said the “carelessness and … violence of the police response certainly exacerbated those causes and contributed to his death.”

Though See and Ganglani had mutual protective orders against one another, Ganglani had returned to See’s Wooster Square home on Nov. 23 to retrieve some belongings. When police — called in by See’s sister, who was out of state — verified the protective orders, they moved to arrest and charge both men. See allegedly resisted arrest, according to press statements from the NHPD, and fell and cut his eye in the process. He was treated for the injury at Yale-New Haven Hospital that evening and then placed in police lock-up, charged with violating a protective order, interfering with police and threatening in the second degree — having allegedly yelled at arresting officers “I will kill you.” See was found dead in his cell at about 6 a.m. the next morning, Nov. 24.

Brown, who knew See as a fellow Ph.D student at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he last spoke to See over the phone in 2012 and knew him to be “struggling with depression.” He said the arrest was unwarranted and excessive, particularly in See’s own home and given his apparent mental health issues.

Yale Law School professor Stephen Wizner said in a Sunday email to the News that the range of legitimate actions taken by law enforcement in response to a breach of a protective order may vary depending on the specific type of order in question.

“It is conceivable that the order that was issued in favor of See’s husband against See prohibited See from allowing his husband into the family home,” Wizner said, adding that he could not comment more specifically without seeing the actual order. “It does seem odd that See would have been arrested in his own home.”

Brown said any death in police custody merits scrutiny, particularly due to the cut above his left eye See sustained while police were arresting him. Though the medical examiner has ruled out trauma from the injury as the cause of death, Brown said the cut is evidence of the violent circumstances of the professor’s incarceration. He called the police statement that See had cut his eye when he fell down a “dubious claim.”

In a press release last week, NHPD Chief Dean Esserman said he had ordered an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding See’s death in addition to the probe being conducted by the department’s Investigative Services Unit. Both investigations will include a full review of video from the detention center, which is administered by the state Judicial Branch, and interviews with all officers and state Marshals involved.

Given initial police “negligence,” Brown said, considerable doubt remains about the effectiveness of these investigations. He further queried the intentions of the NHPD by noting that news of See’s death was not released until three days after he was found unresponsive in his jail cell. Esserman apologized for the “late reporting” in his statement, calling it a deviation from standard procedure.

Brown said a few of See’s friends from the west coast will be attending Tuesday’s march. He said his message has also been circulating within the Yale community and through academic networks across the east coast since he first announced plans for the protest last week.

  • dcheretic

    Nathan Brown seems determined to blame the NHPD for See’s death. Let’s wait for the full autopsy report, including toxicology report, before jumping to conclusions. As a gay man, I’m well aware of homophobia among some police officers. I also know that there are myriad ways for someone to die suddenly without police brutality.

    Hopefully the protesters will not hijack See’s memory for a political agenda that may have no relevance to the case.

    • ben

      The protest, as far as I can tell is exactly what you hope it’s not. Anything that engages this tragedy, be it political or personal, is invested in remembering Samuel See.

      If a private medical examiner releases the same claim that the wound above See’s eye is not the cause of his death – are we to suddenly agree with the police action that cause it. There is not excuse for police brutality – REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT’S RULED AS THE OFFICIAL CAUSE OF A PERSON’S DEATH.

      There are many factors in play – all of which will have certainly influenced or contributed to his death: marshalls who man the lockup say that they check each 15 minutes on those detained, but that’s patently untrue, I know from experience that they only actually check when they distribute a bologna sandwich and a carton of sugar called orange drink and this happens perhaps once every 6 or 7 hours, then there are hospital personal who should have picked up on see’s recent bouts with mental illness and hospitalization, and insisted to keep him detained there instead of allowing him to be taken to lockup, then there are the police who did insist that he be taken to lockup after they gave him a head wound that required stitches.

      In the police report its clear that the wound above See’s eye was received after he was in handcuffs, it’s also clear that See was unfairly cornered in by three officers, intimidated by them and given the long history of police negligence that one could find if they just dug a little deeper – it’s clear that the officers expected See to resist and in doing so, made it impossible for him not to. If that’s not somewhat clarifying, consider the number of officers who were immediately attentive to see versus the one officer who simply escorted his husband to the ground floor. what made that inequity a reasonable choice? why three versus one? the cops entered into an incredibly complicated situation and left their humanity at the door – ready to take out aggression they’d been keeping at bay for quite some time. the created a fight so that they could injure a remarkable and courageous man – and their unchecked homophobia gave them all the permission they needed.

      See’s death will always be a mystery as far as I can tell. How conclusive can the results of an autopsy be when it “could take months” to come to a conclusion? not very – at all. and so what we’re left with are brutal facts and incredible loneliness, not to mention the great work that See would have continued to make inside and beyond the academy’s walls. And we’re left with government employees – in hospitals, courtrooms, and police departments – who hate what they don’t understand and use their power to eradicate it – making the world safe for who? for nobody. read his work. remember this man’s life and his mind and his heart – all of it is contained therein. don’t reiterate what you criticize in the circus of hijacking, in a fake shooter. read what he’s written. it’s breathtaking.

      • JMS

        Do you have the police report? Some of the information you just described is not publicly known.

    • theantiyale

      “Let’s wait and see . . .”

      “Benign neglect and intransigent equivocation” is the term I coined for bureaucratic delaying tactics in my years as a student activist.

      • terryhughes

        It is not “naive” to wait for the relevant facts, especially where there is no evidence of a cover up or excessive delay. People who act in ignorance – especially when it is unnecessary – are negligent and pernicious. In fact, many of the charges hurled against the arresting NHPD officers recounted in this article and these comments are facially defamatory, as if the hurlers were insensitive to the fact that the arresting officers are human beings with rights, too. If the results of the investigation exonerate those officers, perhaps they will want to seek redress against those negligent, ignorant hurlers through the civil courts and a defamation action.

        • theantiyale

          I did NOT advocate hurling charges. I advocated righteous indignation and penetrating questions.

  • Code promo La Redoute

    We shoud wait for the full autopsy report to say something !
    It’s really sensitive to discuss about that now.

  • SamuelRossLee

    The question that people keep focusing on is the WRONG one. While much commentary has centered on the question “How did See die?” The FIRST answer that the public should demand is to the question “Why was See Arrested in the first place?” The simple, and to this point obfuscating, answer “There was a protective order against him.” is less than satisfying to an understandably curious public untrained in the law.

    It seems odd to most of us following this story that a person would be arrested in his home for violating an order to stay away from a person who has come to said person’s home.

    No media outlet reporting this story have been able, it seems, to bring clarity to that point of confusion, and had there been no arrest, there would have been no resisting arrest, no cut above the eye, and certainly no death “in lock up”.

    So, let’s focus on the central and necessary primary question here: What justified this man’s arrest?

    • ms2676

      We will never know the answer to that question unless the arrest report is somehow made public, which will never happen. I think we all need to move on, and focus on something else.

      • SamuelRossLee

        So the Public should merely concede that a Public Document Is NOT going to be made public because the public officials who work for, and are paid by, the Public “will never (let it) happen”? Therefore, we should simply “focus on something else”?

        And what pray-tell should that “something else” be, what the Police tells us (or allows us) to “focus” on?

        It believe that it is attitudes like the one expressed in your comment that puts the rights of every citizen in danger of being trampled upon, more so than the arrogant power displayed by public officials who take advantage of the apathy and acquiescence you display.

        • ms2676

          You are taking my thoughts and comments the wrong way. I am only saying that we as a public will never know the reason for the arrest, we will not have access to the officer’s reports. We will only know what the police will tell us (if anything, they are not obligated to release details). We will also never know the reason for the protective orders.
          I am only saying that we should move on to a different topic, as we are rehashing the same things over and over. As citizens, we need to trust that the Police and our Government for that matter will be upfront with us, and tell us what we need to know. There will always be open ended questions in cases like this.

          • SamuelRossLee

            Nah, I took your comments exactly as you said and meant it. Our job is not to “trust” the police to tell us what we need to know. You are talking about PUBLIC officials who are paid by tax payers’ dollars. HELLO!!

          • Mousey Dung

            That’s not the best defense of paranoid, ignorant action and opinionizing I’ve seen, but at least it makes an effective confession of the approach at the bottom of this “protest:” We don’t actually KNOW anything that warrants our fussing, or even have any substantial evidence that anything is amiss, so we invent it all out of whole cloth and then defend it by asserting our right not to “trust.”

            Nice. And in this way we can reinterpret every police-reported death on the CT Turnpike as an official assassination.wheeeee!

            BTW, you have a “job?” Really? Who would hire you? Do they know what you are writing here? Just asking.

          • JMS

            Lee has a job. He is a pastor at a church in New Haven and was a founding member of the Jamestown Project.

          • Mousey Dung

            Really? A pastor so full of paranoia, ignorance, anger, distrust and hate? Who knew? He not only needs a psychiatrist but some serious spiritual counseling. With self-proclaimed agents of the lord like that one, who needs demons?

            Doctor, heal thyself.

          • SamuelRossLee

            There are at least 3 different points of view here that you have collapsed into 2. There is YOUR Point of view, which is blind faith in the Police, clearly not my point of view. There are those who believe that this situation is worthy of public protest at this point, also not my point of view (though you have conflated my perspective with theirs). And then there are those of us who feel that it is necessary to ASK QUESTIONS about things that are not clear to us, as it is OUR RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY in a free country.

            You seem to be offended by anyone who is not agreeing woth your point of view on this, and that’s too bad, because just as you have the right to trust the police without question, I have the right to rasie questions. Just as you have the right to NOT protest, others have the right to do so. And we each have the right to express our opinions, even if our opinions are not right.

            The only ODD thing occuring here is your insistence that those of us

          • SamuelRossLee

            The only ODD thing occurring here is your insistence that those of us who don’t agree with your “blind faith” in the police should simply go away, stop protesting and/or stop asking questions.

            Guess what, that’s not going to happen.

          • Nancy Morris

            Not a single comment here has advanced the notion that one should have “blind faith” in the police. You are the only one to use that term. There is an ongoing investigation. What has been urged here is that people wait for the results of that investigation before acting, forming opinions and hurling accusations – including those concealed as ersatz “questions.” There is no substantial evidence here of peace officer malfeasance. You repeatedly attempt to fill that gap with an absurdly broad, deep and hostile dismissal of all police action and reports as corrupt. It’s total paranoid nonsense.

          • Nancy Morris

            You have not just been asking questions in these comments, you have mostly been making sweeping assertions. And you have been supporting the protests. Read your own comments.

          • SamuelRossLee

            “Hurling accusations….concealed as ersatz ‘questions'” LoLoLoL You’re Funny. So questions are now concelaed accusations? And you say that the notion of “blind faith” has not been advanced here? You’re EXTRA Funny.

            When questions from the public are understood as accusations, THERE’S your BLIND FAITH. Any assertions I’ve made have been concerning the comments that you and others have made. And supporting the RIGHT to protest – which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY do – is not the same as supporting the protest itself. There’s a subtlety of difference that is important to note.

            But since this is a WRITTEN discussion, why don’t you copy and paste my comments here that represent my “absurdly broad, deep and hostile dismissal of ALL (emphasis mine) police action and reports as corrupt.”


          • SamuelRossLee

            This should be interesting.

          • ms2676

            The next time I want to know what I’m thinking, I’ll call you.

    • terryhughes

      It’s not strange at all. See induced, facilitated and allowed his husband to get closer than the permitted distance. His husband would not have been in the house but for See’s actions. This kind of thing comes up every day in domestic disputes. The NHPD officers here have probably dealt with the issue hundreds of times.

      • JMS

        First, you don’t know that. You don’t know what See did.

        But if true, is arrest necessary in every single case? Do you know how clogged the courts are right now? Do you know how many unnecessary arrests there are? If so, how many? Say how many.

        Do you have any idea that the percentage of Americans with arrest records dwarfs other countries? Do you know that among the many, many “Wanted” people in New Haven right now on a NHPD list is a guy who was stopped for riding the wrong way down a one-way street on his bicycle? When they catch him, since he took off, they are going to arrest him, book him, put his fingerprints into a permanent national database and make him appear in court, probably multiple times on what are now multiple charges.. Do you really want your tax dollars paying for that? is police department supposed to be a mindless arresting machine?

        People have questions — were the men told that to facilitate picking up belongings they could call police to be there standing by? Will police even do that if asked? Did the protective order specifically allow this pickup? Were arrests necessary? These are legitimate questions.

        Your angry objections in several posts just seem to boil down to trying to get people not to be active citizens overseeing public business at all. .

        Police have indeed dealt with this issue hundreds of times, which is more reason to oversee how they deal with it and weigh in on how they should deal with it. That’s America. For someone who knows so little about this your passion and involvement in trying to get people to ignore things and not ask questions explains how you got that way. Why should anyone aspire to that?

        • Nancy Morris

          Your arguments are mostly a hominem attacks, with essentially no significance. Do you really not understand that statements like “For someone who knows so little about this your passion and involvement in trying to get people to ignore things and not ask questions explains how you got that way” are meaningless attacks on the person you are addressing, and contribute nothing to the discussion?

  • theantiyale

    ” Esserman apologized for the “late reporting” in his statement, calling it a deviation from standard procedure.”

    This wording about three day delay in announcing Mr. See’s death while in police custody (“a deviation from standard procedure”) reminds me of “protective reaction strike” the White House euphemism or doublespeak for US troops bombing and burning down an entire Vietnamese village (women, children and all) during the Vietnam War.

    “Benign neglect and intransigent equivocation” is my phrase for official foot-dragging.
    Can the Yale Daily News resolve the following issue?

    At one point in the reporting on the See case, I read that the husband had a protective order which forbid Mr. See to come within 100 feet of him.

    Unless Mr. See’s home is longer, wider or taller than 100 feet (one third of a football field), the HUSBAND instantly and knowingly violated his own protective order by stepping one inch inside Mr. See’s home .

    I know from my real estate license that law entitles a homeowner to “the quiet enjoyment of the premises.”

    • terryhughes

      Both See and his husband were arrested, each for violation of the other’s restraining order. See consented to his husband coming to the house in an earlier phone conversation, and then admitted him to the home. Obviously that violates the restraining order the husband obtained against See. That’s been reported many times in many media. That the people involved in this “protest” act and speak otherwise is ridiculous. The NHPD had it right. And if there were any doubt about the appropriateness of the arrest, See’s screaming “I will kill you” and physically attacking the officers seals the deal.

      • theantiyale


        • Mousey Dung

          Every single statement of important facts in this article and every other media report on this matter is technically “hearsay.” Sao what? We all rely on hearsay all the time, and properly so.

          • theantiyale

            Some of us are attempting to call on the resources at Yale (Yale Law School, Yale Daily News) to help establish the facts. The one Law school faculty comment I read here was that it does ‘seem odd’ that See was arrested in his own home.

            “Yale Law School professor Stephen Wizner said in a Sunday email to the News that the range of legitimate actions taken by law enforcement in response to a breach of a protective order may vary depending on the specific type of order in question.

            ‘It is conceivable that the order that was issued in favor of See’s husband against See prohibited See from allowing his husband into the family home,’ Wizner said, adding that he could not comment more specifically without seeing the actual order. ‘It does seem odd that See would have been arrested in his own home.’ ”

      • JMS

        Don’t report police allegations as facts. Police said See said that.

        Secondly, it was reportedly a protective order, not a restraining order. Restraining orders are civil, protective orders are criminal.

        The protective order would be public – they would be in the criminal case files at the courthouse — both See’s and his husband’s files.

        The arrest reports are not in the public realm, yet anyway, and may never be.

  • theantiyale


    We are not talking about an untidy domestic dispute gone awry here. We are talking about a human life ended while in police “custody.”

    Unless Yale no longer hires scholars with a promising publishing future, we are talking about a scholarly legacy aborted.

    We are talking about 2000 years of heterosexual entitlement threatened by a shifting legal landscape.

    We are apparently also talking about side-effects from anti-depressant therapies, according to new information about the deceased’s mental health reported in the YDN article..

    We are also talking about delicate New Haven/Yale relations, something I have experienced from the moment of my birth at what was then Grace [Yale]- New Haven Hospital, staffed by Yale Medical students.

    This is a mess.

  • terryhughes

    This “protest” and most of the comments reported here are completely daft, at least in light of the facts as recounted by many media reports. See was arrested for violating a protective order when he opened the door of his house and allowed his husband to enter. There’s no mystery there. That kind of thing happens every day with respect to protective orders in domestic disputes: You can’t turn them on or off.

    Yale Law School professor Stephen Wizner’s comments that “It is conceivable that the order that was issued in favor of See’s husband against See prohibited See from allowing his husband into the family home,” and “It does seem odd that See would have been arrested in his own home” are thoroughly irresponsible. Several media reports have stated that the police arrested See because the protective order prohibited See from admitting his husband into the home. That fact is no more in dispute than any other in this case. Of course the protective order allowed an arrest in his own home. Where else does Professor Wizner think arrests in domestic disputes normally occur? Yankee Stadium?

    The claims here that the police should have taken See’s mental illness into account are also bizarre and just wrong. Was there a summary of his medical condition nailed to his front door for the police to read? Do the people making such claims think the New Haven police department keeps a psychiatrist at the dispatch desk for such purposes? What planet are these people from?

    If you don’t want to be arrested – in your own home or anywhere else – don’t scream “I will kill you” at police officers called to the premises in the course of their duties. And NEVER physically attack a police officer. Regardless of the terms of that protective order, See should have been arrested immediately for doing any of that, in or out of his home. His “defenders'” insinuations otherwise are complete drivel, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

    See is dead and we don’t know why. In particular, we do not know if the NHPD used excessive force, even though the arrest was obviously proper. There is no evidence or even a colorable claim that anything here is being covered up. An investigation is being conducted and that takes time. There is no indication at this time that the NHPD’s actions were excessive, nor is there one bit of evidence that any “homophobic” sentiments were involved here. Until the investigation has been conducted, meaningful, correct answers cannot be provided, and non-meaningful or incorrect answer should never be provided.

    In short: The people involved in this “protest” should stop mouthing off and wait for the results of the investigation.

    • SamuelRossLee

      Which article did you read, or what piece of information are you privy to that reveals that See “opened the door of his house and let his husband in”?

      Or did you simply make that little piece of information up to advance your argument?

      • terryhughes

        Look, since you obviously can’t be bothered to conduct a simple Google search or two, I see no reason to indulge or answer your willful ignorance with any further specificity: Go look it up. The fact you find questionable is reported in media all over the Internet, as is the fact that the husband CALLED AHEAD.

        Further: It’s obvious. Do you think the husband was on premises through breaking and entering See’s house? Your comment is disgraceful in both tone and content.

        • SamuelRossLee

          I get it, you have no credible answer to back up your claim. By the way, mine was not a comment; it was a question

          Thank You.

          • Nancy Morris

            “Ganglani exceeded an agreed upon 2-hour moving window.”


            It’s pretty obvious from the above report and many others that See agreed to let Ganglani into the house for two hours to move his property, in clear violation of both restraining orders. You, and the rest of the bloviators described in this article and expressing themselves in the comments, would be well served by not talking for a substantial interval now. Those demanding that Yale do more are especially annoying. A man’s employer ordinarily has no role to play in an investigation of his death unless the employer was somehow involved. Yale has issued entirely appropriate statements, and it’s proper role now is to wait. Yale certainly has no obligation to treat the New Haven peace authorities with presumed suspicion. The people here who are demanding that kind of action are way out of line.

          • SamuelRossLee

            I find it oh so interesting when commenters on a public website are eager to get others to stop “talking”. Are the questions making you uncomfortable for some reason?
            By the way, you, unlike the rest of us, have read the protective order issued to both See and his husband so you know what behavior by either would be a “clear violation”, right?

          • Mousey Dung

            Ignorant, uninformed commentary is always best omitted, in public fora and private.

            Here we know several things:

            1. Restraining orders are common in domestic disputes and their phrasing is fairly standardized. If these restraining orders were like most such orders then the spouses meeting by agreement would be a clear violation of both orders. This happens often and the police have to deal with it.

            2. The police say both orders were violated. There is no basis for denying that.

            3. See’s behavior at the scene of his arrest clearly warranted his arrest even if the police misconstrued the force of the restraining order against him.

            4. See appears to have been a prostitute, a life choice normally associated with many life-shortening practices, including drug abuse. His erratic behavior at the scene of his arrest as well as his prior arrest further suggests drug abuse.

            5. Preliminary reports rule out trauma as the cause of death.

            In short, until the current investigation is completed there is no reason for the fuss reported in this article.

          • SamuelRossLee

            Apparently, you don’t understand the difference between “commentary” and QUESTIONS.

            Couple that with the fact that not all of us have the same history/relationship with the police, and MAYBE you can understand why some of us might be reluctant to draw the same conclusions that you have drawn peremptorily.

            Until then, we’ll stick to asking questions about a citizen dying in Public custody under the care of Public Officials.

          • Mousey Dung

            Please go back and read your comments. Your comments are full of sweeping, unsupported, rude, ignorant assertions and accusations: nobody trusts police reports, those who disagree with you are angry and ignorant of everything from police practice and beyond, it’s not “our job” to trust, and on and on and on and on. If you really think you have merely been asking questions you need a psychiatrist.

            And many of the distinctions you draw and assert as somehow important are trivial semantic points. For example, a temporary restraining order issued to prohibit domestic violence is referred to as a protective order. But it’s still a form of restraining order. For some reason that distinction is crucial to your thinking. But it’s trivial and you are wildly uncivil.

            Take a pill and stop embarrassing yourself.

          • Mousey Dung

            You demanded a cite to easily available media reports clearly stating that See admitted his husband to his home. Nancy provided one and you ignore it, flying off on another tangent. Your mind is like an aviary.

          • Clack deSul

            This particular man’s employer had a role not to have become his employer.

          • JMS

            What is he so angry about?

          • Mousey Dung

            What an absolutely bizarre thing to say about someone (you don’t even know the sex) who is opposing actions based on ignorant anger. Your defense of ignorant action, anger and opinion could hardly be more perverse. What’s more, there no “anger” in terryhughes’ comments. That’s another ad hominem conceit you invented.

        • JMS

          You know, you’ve admonished people for their naivete and ignorance while revealing yours and suggest in a separate post on another page that police may have grounds to sue for defamation. On the defamation thing, even if an omniscient being videotaped the entire incident and proved every police word was true, and further, all their discretionary decisions were so fabulous they should be sainted, and indeed, policing in America had reached the apex of integration into a vibrant democracy, those officers would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of anything but summary judgment suing for defamation.

          it is more complicated than you realize — it is not as simple as just waiting for the facts. If you become more knowledgeable about policing and politics, you will understand better that there are serious systemic problems and maybe give a little credit to those colleagues of his calling for protest. Maybe they know something you don’t.

          • terryhughes

            Ah, gee, where I come from one is liable for defamation against a person other than a public figure (which these peace officers definitely are not) if one negligently makes false statements about them that causes them harm. Unless the investigation now under way turns up something quite unsuggested by the currently known facts, anyone who has accused (implicitly or explicitly) any of these peace officers of causing See’s death and/or homophobic motivations and/or excessive force and/or brutality against See and/or illegally arresting See has probably defamed those officers. Attempts to hide one’s defamation in ersatz “questions” are unlikely to impress a jury or any reviewing judge.

            You, for example, are at risk. Just keep talking.

          • JMS

            No Terry, truly, I haven’t seen anything that would support a defamation suit that could really go anywhere. Nothing I have seen so far comes close to overriding the value placed in public debate in the public interest, speaking as a layman.

            I can’t think of a judge in Connecticut who wouldn’t flick it.

            Just to be clear, when you say I am at risk – you mean at risk of being accused of defamation, correct? Or am I at risk of something else?

          • terryhughes

            You need psychiatric treatment on several fronts. Have a good life.

    • JMS

      You have to understand a few things. First, no one knowledgeable
      believes police reports. They are fabricated in the same ways over and
      over. Police always say suspects physically struggled with them whether
      they did or not, if there is an injury to explain or simply to beef up a
      report. They often say resisting whether or not suspects resisted. They
      often fabricate quotes by arrestees and witnesses out of thin air. So,
      if you are not aware of this, that part can be forgiven; you are living
      an enviable life that you have not had cause to learn these things.

      One has little choice but to dismiss police reports in the absence of any
      other evidence, whether or not every word in one or another report
      happens to be absolutely true.

      Grant them some more polite status if you want — suspending them in some space reserved for withholding judgment if you like. But don’t quote from them as fact, ever. Don’t ever quote allegations as facts, ever.

      From several elements of Nathan Brown’s communications over the past week, it is clear he is well aware of all this. These are demonstrated realities, not mere propositions.

      In that context maybe his call to action, which seems premature or too ambiguous to many, begins to seem a little bit easier to understand.

      The same is true of police and court/(jail) internal investigations. Not speculation, established over and over, case by case, ad nasuem that these internal investigations generally are lacking in integrity, rigor, independence and truth.

      Further reason for someone who has that background knowledge to call an action that may seem too ambiguous and premature to many.

      So for those who know these things, they rightly dismiss the police reports entirely as useless even if by some chance, by some miracle, every word in this one is true. They have little chance of ever discovering the truth but
      they will raise a cry. I don’t understand why they are being ridiculed
      for that.

      –“Several media reports have stated that the police arrested See because
      the protective order prohibited See from admitting his husband into the
      home. ”

      Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe not a single press report has said that, The reports say at most the charges alleged against See included violating the protective order. The behavior alleged to have violated the order hasn’t been specified.

      The reports aren’t clear either about a report that there was a two-hour
      window — was that arranged by them on their own? Was that specified in
      the court orders? It is possible to be arrested for violation of
      protective orders if parties arrange a meeting for any reason that
      violates the terms.

      In Connecticut arrests not made on a warrant signed by a judge are very hard to publicly access, so we’ll see if someone manages to get a copy of it. It is not impossible, there are some avenues that might put it in the public realm, but not if someone is not working on it right now. To date, the press doesn’t have a copy.

      Otherwise police could decide to release it on their own accord
      to quell protest, but they will not be allowed to do that once the case
      is dismissed and sealed, which will happen very soon.

      It’s axiomatic that government that happens behind a veil is less honest, so
      Connecticut’s laws mean there is less public accountability and scrutiny
      than in many other states.

      Another good reason to refrain from parental admonishments to people to to stop “mouthing off,” to dutifully wait for agencies historically lousy at and dishonest in investigations to finish theirs. That’s the exact attitude that enables Connecticut to continue to conduct so many of its affairs behind closed doors.

      I’m with Rev. Ross Lee on this one.

      • terryhughes

        Your belief that it is likely that the arresting officers here invented their claim that See resisted arrest even though See’s husband was right there as a witness who could contradict them is attenuated, at least. See’s husband has appeared on this matter (remember, he was also arrested) in court and offered no such contradiction.

        It is pointless to address ravings like yours with facts and rational argument. In fact, you have ratcheted up your paranoia to the point at which it is quite difficult to imagine how ANYTHING could change your mind and allay your suspicions (actually, beliefs). The arresting officers can’t be believed. See’s spouse apparently doesn’t matter. The officers at the detention center are presumed to lie. Official reports are fabricated and “nobody” believes them. You ignore the preliminary medical findings that rule out trauma as the cause of death. Are the doctors in on it, too? An “independent” investigation? – how could someone with your expressed hostile paranoia ever believe such a thing could exist untainted?

        • JMS

          Have you asked yourself if it appears attenuated because you lack the background that others have that establish that the sun rises every day in this business?

          Your belief that See’s husband’s testimony would deter police fabrication in general is a false belief. Generally that sort of thing is no obstacle whatsoever.

          All I said was that police credibility is ferociously thin, police reports are almost worthless. You’re making wild claims about paranoia and baseless suspicions.

          If you knew how much of your tax dollars were underwriting police boondoggles and how much your grandkids are going to be paying for it, your politics might change. As for this incident, I have absolutely no idea what happened. I have no idea if the narrative in the secret police report is accurate or not.

          By the way, I haven’t resorted to insulting you, speaking of “hostility.” This is getting unseemly.

          • terryhughes

            “[P]olice credibility is ferociously thin, police reports are almost worthless. You’re making wild claims about paranoia and baseless suspicions.”

            Ah, so. Behold!

            Your paranoia and distrust is expanding like a superheated gas in a vacuum. Exactly what will it take to allay your concerns? I’ve asked before, and you haven’t answered. I’m on the edge of my seat!

  • $84691698

    Homophobic is freely applied to a situation in which a gay couple and cops are interacting, in a domestic dispute. What’s the pejorative applied when cops are involved in a heterosexual domestic dispute?

    • concerned

      Well, when was the last time a heterosexual domestic dispute ended with someone mysteriously dying in prison?

  • theantiyale


    I am indignant at the silence at Yale.

    • eyequeue

      Paul, there is no silence at Yale. The English Department website features a tribute to Prof. See. The Dean of Yale College spoke in memory of him at the Gay and Lesbian Studies Program last week. A memorial service has been scheduled in Battell Chapel. Your anger is fueled by what seems like willful ignorance of these facts, and while I agree with you that the silence in the days after See’s death was disturbing, you now seem to be consumed by a private truth that is distracting and upsetting to those of us who would mourn him in the context of reality.

      • theantiyale

        I apologize .

        My ignorance is not “willfull” it is geographical.

        I am in Vermont. The Yale Daily News and the New Haven Register are my means of communication. This is the first I have heard of these good and decent items. and I hope you publicize them widely.

        Please provide me with the links. and the texts and I will put them on my blog http://theantiyale.blogspot.com
        as i did the University’s official comment last week http://theantiyale.blogspot.com/2013/12/see-no-evil.html and
        as I will now post your comment and this reply—– immediately.

        Your correction reaffirms my faith in humanity.
        Again, my apology.

        Paul Keane

    • joey00

      I have no idea why but I feel like singing The Ballad of John and Yoko..Totally irrelevant,maybe…Nonsensical and possibly offensive.
      Christ y’know it ain’t easy , ya know how hard it can be , the way things are going , they’re gonna crucify me..
      ..Peter Brown called to say , we can make it okay

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Hope that today’s demonstration is postponed because the continuing snow is going to make it rather ineffective.

    Was planning to go with my sister and dog Domino but under the circumstances i decided not to.

  • gstadler

    Even if your allegation that he was a meth user is true, why does that make it necessarily a death he himself “could have prevented”? Why do you automatically lay the responsibility at his feet? How do you know that those in charge of the jail could not have prevented it with a better or more rapid response? Even sick people don’t deserve to die. Even people who behave in ways that you find objectionable deserve proper healthcare and protection. Let’s find out whether he got it, rather than start blaming him.

  • Clack deSul

    I would like to question the circumstance of Yale having hired this professor. But I know that the question of the article above and my question will be ignored by unaccountable Yale administrators.

    • ldffly

      My opinion, too.

    • theantiyale

      Are Yale faculty not allowed to have domestic disputes or mental health problems? Seems rather primitive.

  • dbrett


    I know we are subject to all opinions in online comments but NANCY MORRIS must be a lobbyist (or PR plant) for Yale. Her comments are tone deaf and she is always in Yale’s corner. Ugh!!!!! Is this what Yale is spending the $500K on lobbying for? Maybe they should spend more money on food and refrigeration so students don’t get food poisioning!!

  • Kenny Li

    I don’t know why some of you are quick to blame either party, in this case, without passing on any unsupported claims, shouldn’t the first thing that we demand be a clean explanation for what happened? So far, 2 weeks after the death, we’re not seeing a full picture that should have been explained already.

    We don’t know if the police have violated any regulation, or whether if police behavior has anything to do with the death. We also don’t know if See is instrumental to his own death. However, keep in mind that the police doesn’t only have a duty to “do the right thing” and “take out the baddie”, it has a duty to “protect the citizens” and “help those in need”. Even if we have decided that the police practices in this case are legit and/or forgivable, it is only common sense that we should still take a message from this unfortunate death — why is there someone dead in Jail after a mere few hours? Why hasn’t anyone reacted faster? Without accusing anyone (because tax is limited and one person only has 2 eyes), can we not investigate into a supervising system that provide better care for those detained? They’re detained, not even trialed yet, there’s really no reason to rob them of the proper care that any citizen would deserve.

    All in all, the main problem that I have about the police is that we are still not being shown the details surrounding See’s death. 2 weeks after the death happened and we still don’t know why. 2 weeks of public attention yet they still haven’t published a clear statement about the circumstances of the arrest — It could well be that the police and the particular officers have done absolutely nothing wrong, but neglecting the problem is a whole new problem in and of itself. It almost feel like they don’t care about giving people answers, and they don’t care about a person’s death. This makes me frown more than anything else so far.

    And all those people talking about See’s allegation of having being a prostitute — Does that matter at the moment? Even if he indeed had questionable past (which still yet to be confirmed), that doesn’t lessen his academic credibility or his talents. This is still a very talented individual who could have contributed a lot to our society, believe me, it is NOT easy to become an assistant professor for Yale. And even if we do not consider his academic status, this is still someone who is found dead in a cell after a few hours. Not sick, not abused, dead. I maintain that the very least that we should all agree on, is that this is an unfortunate event, and that we want the police to give us a more elaborate answer as soon as possible. Given the 2 week delay already, I do think that it is a very reasonable request.

  • theantiyale


    Summary as of December 18, 2013 :

    We have a Yale professor, arrested in his own home around 6 P.M. November 23 for violating a restraining order against his
    spouse which no journalist or official has published for the public to view.

    During the arrest the Yale professor is wounded over his eye,
    but no one is so far named responsible for causing the cut.
    Before being jailed the Yale professor, in police custody, is
    treated at Yale-New Haven Hospital, where no medical personnel alert anyone of
    any medical irregularity which could pose a health hazard to the professor were
    he to be released for jailing from Yale-New Haven Hospital.

    In jail where inmates
    are observed every 15 minutes, there is no record of anyone noticing any
    medical symptoms which might pose a danger to the professor’s life.

    Around 6:00 AM
    November 24th the Yale professor is found “unresponsive” in his
    cell, suggesting that he was not unresponsive on the previous 15 minute check,
    presumably around 5;45 AM. Thus,
    something apparently caused the professor to expire with no warning during that
    15-minute period.

    The New Haven Police Department, violating its own
    procedures, does not notify the public of the death of the Yale professor for
    three days, November 27th.

    No record has emerged
    of when the NHPD notified the Yale administration of the death, or the
    professor’s next of kin of the death.

    Yale issues an expression
    of sympathy and mourning and schedules a memorial service for January 25, 2014
    at Battell Chapel.

    By December 4 a preliminary autopsy rules out “trauma” as a
    cause of death.

    A UCLA professor and friend of the late professor organizes
    a protest march (“a death in jail is a political death”) in New Haven which occurs on December 10.

    To date (December 18) , the wording of the restraining
    orders which precipitated these events nearly a month ago on November 23, have
    not been published in any news journal.