You assume I don't know what it means. I'm not the ignorant one here. Like I said, it's your case, you make it. I understand the nuances of law. If you want to make an argument that "acting reasonably" is a statutory requirement then you better get on your pony and start riding.
I'll argue this with you, but you are going to have to actually make your case.
Apparently the agency thought so as they dropped the case and made quite an apology over the situation. When you are right you don't have to do that.
No he didn't. He gave a lengthy explanation that never actually articulates the elements of the crime. The descriptions of Gates actions do not marry up to the grounds he used to arrest under Massachusetts statute. I can't prove a negative. My point is he didn't provide nearly enough information to make his case based upon the elements of the crime. This isn't that hard to understand.
Stop right there. Here is the disconnect. He should have known on the scene he didn't have PC based upon the statute he claimed to be enforcing. It wasn't there, period. He invited an irate man to follow him outside then arrests him for "disorderly conduct" citing "tumultuous behavior." The suspect has to have the purpose of committing the crime against the public, the statute is very clear on this, and it is the responsibility of the officer to prove that. This officer did not prove that.
Sure, as long as the officer is proven right. And this officer was not proven right. In fact all charges were dropped and the department issued what amounted to a strong apology regarding their actions that day. You don't do that when you are right.
Please let me know if we are going to go down the "he's friends with Obama and that's why this went away" road.
Here is Gate's short version of events if any of you are interested.
So who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Do
you know?