• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

wasting time/money on arresting this perosn was not doing their job, it was filling their enormous egos.

:roll:

And what ego-driven purpose could possibly be in play here?
 
How do you know they're "coming out of his house"? They're on the porch, but you don't know how long they've been there or if they decided to take him back up there FROM the sidewalk.

What difference does it make though? He didn't commit any crime.
 
:roll:

And what ego-driven purpose could possibly be in play here?

The ego of a cop that thinks being yelled at warrants clogging up the system with one more arrest.

I’m not saying the homeowner didn’t have a big mouth, and an ego to boot….Takes two to tango.
 
What difference does it make though? He didn't commit any crime.

That's a different argument. You're basically accusing them of lying about what happened based on the photo.
 
Why shouldn't the professor accuse the police of racial bias after they accost him and rough him up in his own home? Because a black man could not live in Cambridge? Go wash your sheets.


Where is your proof that they 'roughed him up in his own home'????

Are you still ignoring the report?
 
The ego of a cop that thinks being yelled at warrants clogging up the system with one more arrest.

I don't think that conclusion is fairly reached by any of evidence.
 
They arrested an out-of-control disorderly citizen who was pissed off for being wrongly accused. Gates shouldn't have elevated the situation as much as he did, but I don't think his behavior warranted an arrest. I think they made a mistake too.

And whose fault was it that he was wrongly accused?

The person who called in the problem.


Hint: If you are going to call the police to report something happening to your neighbors, make sure you know your ****ing neighbors first.
 
And whose fault was it that he was wrongly accused?

The person who called in the problem.


Hint: If you are going to call the police to report something happening to your neighbors, make sure you know your ****ing neighbors first.

I agree completely there. The woman who called it in completely overreacted.
 
So wait a minute, this guys is coming out of his house in hand cuffs. I thought they arrested him out on the sidewalk.

The charge was dropped because it was bull****. Not because these cops were racist. They arrested him on "being an asshole to the cops in public." Unfortunately for them, this guy had a the resources to call them on their nonsense.

Folks who can't take some name calling have no business working in law enforcement.

He is standing here being escorted by law enforcement from his home.

Where can you read into it that is the location where he was arrested?

Read the report, I believe it mentions something about securing his home.
 
Who cares if he was race baiting the cops? That's not grounds for arresting the man. He can speak his mind on his own property. That is not against the law. Which is why the charges were dropped. Is Gates a race baiter? I think that's pretty much obvious. Is that a crime? No, end of story. He shouldn't have been arrested.

Bull****. They made a bad arrest on trumped up charges. He wasn't out of control, he was shooting off his mouth on his own property. There is no law that says you can't yell at the cops. They weren't doing their job, they were abusing their authority because the guy pissed them off.

Im starting to wonder if you ever worked in law enforcement at all as you say, or are you just saying all this stuff to impress all your new liberal friends.

If you've worked for law enforcement for 1 year, you already know what the media does to a story, any story, involving crime or law enforcement. They NEVER get the facts, or change them a little to make the story more exciting.
It only gets worse as the story gets to a national level.


Thats why I rely on the report, which clearly shows the guy was in the wrong.
 
I don't think that conclusion is fairly reached by any of evidence.

By evidence you really mean a police report of the officer defending his stupid arrest
 
A police officer should never be reprimanded or suspended for doing his job.

If the man violated a law, regardless of whether you think the law should be enforced or if it was necessary, and the officer decided to act within his authority to enforce said law, then there should not be any reprimand or suspension.

What law did he violate? Reading that report does not indicate the elements of the crime in question. There was not enough PC for an arrest. That was a case of stretching the pen to try and make a very weak case. I know that crap when I see it.

The cop should be reprimanded.

Here is the entire report. It's bull****. The officer asked Gates to talk to him outside because of the "acoustics" of the kitchen. Regardless, his conduct did not rise to the level of committing the crime, which is spelled out ZETTEL, COMMONWEALTH vs., 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471.

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

"(a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or . . .

Page 474

"(c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor" (emphasis supplied in Feigenbaum).

The Commonwealth argues that the evidence supports both sections of the definition - the defendant's actions constituted tumultuous conduct and also created a hazardous condition by acts which served no legitimate purpose of the defendant.

1. Tumultuous behavior. Turning to the ordinary dictionary definition, we find that "tumultuous" is defined as "l: marked by tumult: full of commotion and uproar: riotous, stormy, boisterous . . . 2: tending or disposed to cause or incite a tumult . . . 3: marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval." Webster's Third New Intl. Dictionary 2462 (1993) [Note 5].

It's a case of culpability. In order for Gates to have committed this crime they had to prove it was his intended purpose to annoy, alarm, or nuisance the public.
 
Did he violate the law?

:2wave::2wave:

No, he did not. The law states he must have the purpose of causing an annoyance, alarm, or nuisance to the public. There is no evidence that this was Gates purpose. Culpable mental state. Gates was pissed off and yelling at the cops. That does not constitute disorderly conduct.
 
What law did he violate? Reading that report does not indicate the elements of the crime in question. There was not enough PC for an arrest. That was a case of stretching the pen to try and make a very weak case. I know that crap when I see it.

The cop should be reprimanded.

Here is the entire report. It's bull****. The officer asked Gates to talk to him outside because of the "acoustics" of the kitchen. Regardless, his conduct did not rise to the level of committing the crime, which is spelled out ZETTEL, COMMONWEALTH vs., 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471.



It's a case of culpability. In order for Gates to have committed this crime they had to prove it was his intended purpose to annoy, alarm, or nuisance the public.

Im sorry, how many times do you have to tell someone through yelling and screaming that they are racist and are profiling you?

I'd say one is sufficient, any more and its intended purpose goes from communicating an opinion to creating a scene for the purpose of getting attention and annoying the **** out of everyone.
 
No, he did not. The law states he must have the purpose of causing an annoyance, alarm, or nuisance to the public. There is no evidence that this was Gates purpose. Culpable mental state. Gates was pissed off and yelling at the cops. That does not constitute disorderly conduct.

Im sorry, how many times do you have to tell someone through yelling and screaming that they are racist and are profiling you?

I'd say one is sufficient, any more and its intended purpose goes from communicating an opinion to creating a scene for the purpose of getting attention and annoying the **** out of everyone.

My response remains the same.
 
So, your an expert on Massachusetts law?

I'm an expert in police work, I don't have to be an expert in Massachusetts law. I can read the statute and then see if they applied the charge properly based on the elements of the case. They did not act properly.

They ****ed up.
 
I'm an expert in police work, I don't have to be an expert in Massachusetts law. I can read the statute and then see if they applied the charge properly based on the elements of the case. They did not act properly.

They ****ed up.

And again I disagree based upon the fact that yelling the same thing over and over in public goes from communicating your feelings to being a nuisance.
 
My response remains the same.

Well like the officer in this story, you've not proven your case. We don't get the liberty of interpreting the law and applying on a case by case basis so that it fits our desire at the time. The law is the law. Either this guy didn't know the statute or he deliberately misused in order to make an arrest.

Either way, the arrest was a bad and he should be reprimanded.
 
Well like the officer in this story, you've not proven your case. We don't get the liberty of interpreting the law and applying on a case by case basis so that it fits our desire at the time. The law is the law. Either this guy didn't know the statute or he deliberately misused in order to make an arrest.

Either way, the arrest was a bad and he should be reprimanded.

So your not going to address the fact that following the man outside, even at request, and repeating the same accusations that had already been communicated, loudly, and refusing to calm down when asked to do so, and then told, would definately constitute as acting disorderly with the intent to do so?


You are wrong on this one.
 
So wait a minute, this guys is coming out of his house in hand cuffs. I thought they arrested him out on the sidewalk.

The charge was dropped because it was bull****. Not because these cops were racist. They arrested him on "being an asshole to the cops in public." Unfortunately for them, this guy had a the resources to call them on their nonsense.

Folks who can't take some name calling have no business working in law enforcement.
Yeah, right.
 
And again I disagree based upon the fact that yelling the same thing over and over in public goes from communicating your feelings to being a nuisance.

In almost every state (if not all) it is held that police officers peace cannot be disturbed while he or she is on duty. I see nothing in this report that shows a member of the public made a complaint that Gates' actions were annoying, alarming, or being a nuisance. I also know what Massachusetts statute says about this crime and what the report says. They don't add up.
 
Back
Top Bottom