• 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

No, it's your case. You make it.

OK, then remain ignorant. I don't care.


And they were wrong.

They didn't think so.



You're not applying that reason properly here. This officer has a responsibility to know the elements of the crime he is arresting an offender for. The elements were not there, the officer doesn't get to "think he sees PC" and then follow through with the arrest...he has to HAVE PC. It's called the investigatory process. And he didn't articulate it successfully.

He articulated it in his report. Care to show what parts of his report were faulty?

Probable cause is still easily satisfied even if no conviction can be had, and there is a LOT of deference given to the instincts of a police officer -- particularly an experienced, well-respected officer.
 
The officer asked him outside. He followed him outside. He was on his own property. He can walk where he chooses. If you are going to take this approach you need to define what constitutes "legitimate purpose" and what does not. The officer are on his property, they are leaving, he is following. Show me how it's "illegitimate."
I'd say following the officer outside just to yell the same things you already communicated to the officer inside would not be a 'legitimate purpose' and would only serve as grandstanding, for attention.


Why then did he invite Gates to follow him?
Because Gates was still berating him, and yet he no longer had the exigent circumstances to be in the home.


Wrong, they were already assembled outside his residence. The report even says this.
I believe it said that the other Officers were assembled outside the residence. I could be wrong though. Im going off of yesterday's memory, and I had court today so I have lots of little facts running around in my head.


Since they had gathered during the period of the incident that occurred in Gates residence his activity didn't cause them to do anything they weren't already voluntarily engaged in of their own accord.
Even if these were the normal members of society, they gathered here because the conduct occuring INSIDE was disturbing. Have you ever heard of a noise ordinance? Not to say this was in violation of a noise ordinance, but think about the same situation. There are still limitations of what you can/can't do even if you are on your own property if the actions effect the public. A grown man cannot run out into his yard, whip out his dick, and piss in the grass for all the world to see, Nor can he turn up a stereo so loud as to be heard 4 houses down causing a disturbance.

They were gawking before Gates followed the cop outside because all the police cars were in the neighborhood.
Or was it because they could hear Gates from outside?
This is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Depends on where you live.



So? Show me the law that says you can't yell on your own property.
Show me the law that says you can't walk around naked in your own house in a glass see through house and no curtains or blinds.
Show me the law that says you can't whip out your dick and piss in the direction of the street while smiling and waiving at cars.


No it doesn't. It shows his intent to yell at the officer.
Which he already did inside the home. Coming outside to yell the same things shows he was trying to make a scene.


Pure speculation and would never hold up in court. You're not a mind reader.
Wow. In that case we can't prove anything that shows intent unless we create a machine that learns to read minds. :roll:


And where is the crime here? Not being calm is not a crime. His not being a crime has to rise to the level of violating state statute, which has already been posted here. Based upon the report his behavior did not violate statute.
I disagree for the reasons I articulated in the previous posts of mine.



Harshaw is wrong in his position. He didn't violate the law. In your own words you are completely reliant upon guessing at Gates intent to make your case. A defense attorney would shut this down in short order and you'd be laughed off the stand.
Im allowing his actions to show his intent. If we depend on suspects to be honest about their intent we'd never get convictions.


When the crime is against the public, and not the state, the public must provide a complainant or victim in order to testify that their peace was disturbed, annoyed, or that they were alarmed. Otherwise how can an officer say "the public was alarmed" when nobody from the public made that complaint.
Apparently the officer cannot speak onbehalf of what he witnessed, is that what you are saying? Officers are not a part of the public I guess.

So if a guy pisses in the direction of traffic, an officer sees it, but nobody comes up and says, "He is pissing in traffic I want him arrested" the officer has to shrug and drive off?


This thing was dumped because they knew it would never stand up...ever.
In your opinion.
 
Wrong Caine, a citizen can file a witness statement with the officer while making the report. The officer doesn't have to witness anything, the testimony of the victim/witness/complainant is more than enough and serves as probable cause.

Maybe in Massachusetts. But that argument doesn't work for everywhere, which I don't belive Scarecrow was speaking of massachusetts specifically.

In NC, an Officer cannot make an on scene arrest for an incident that occurred outside of his presence except in the case of Felonies (with probable cause) or Domesic Physical Assaults (with probable cause or physical signs of injury to one party). There are some other exceptions, like with Unlawful concealment (shoplifting) where the subject is detained by store employees, a few others im not thinking of at the moment.

Disorderly conduct isn't one of them.
 
And touching a bouncer is assault. That is more than a simple peace disturbance.

Thus far nobody has successfully articulated that this man committed an offense that actually meets the statutory definition of "disorderly conduct" under Massachusetts law.

I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and make up some kind of crazy ass rule Ive never heard of before, like the citizen must complain about it first crap, as if law enforcement don't count as a member of the public.

Maybe not where you come from.
 
OK, then remain ignorant. I don't care.
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.

They didn't think so.
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.


He articulated it in his report. Care to show what parts of his report were faulty?
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.

Probable cause is still easily satisfied even if no conviction can be had,
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.

and there is a LOT of deference given to the instincts of a police officer -- particularly an experienced, well-respected officer.
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.

This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

So who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Do you know?
 
One doesn't have to claim their was a racial motivation in the arrest, just stupidity.
 
I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and make up some kind of crazy ass rule Ive never heard of before, like the citizen must complain about it first crap, as if law enforcement don't count as a member of the public.
Law enforcement does not count as a "member of the public" while on duty in most states. I didn't make it up. And I never said that an officers testimony doesn't count or that a citizen MUST complain first. You need to go back re-read my posts.

Here is the problem as I see it. You and others seem to take any outside reference I make as an excuse to trail off of the case being discussed.

Maybe not where you come from.
Sure.
 
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

This explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. And I'll explain why I find it less credible than the Officer's report.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates.
This is not very solid at all. The picture it paints is a man asking for a name and badge number, and an officer just standing, starring off into space apparently. This portion doesn't fit in with the time frame, and it appears as if too much information was left out. I wonder why that is?

As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Again, wayy too much information left out for this thing to run smoothly. Gates would have us believe this story? He walks outside, and yet again a bunch of Officers just starring off into space as he asks a question and then as they wait for him to step outside arrest him. For what exactly?


This story makes about as much sense as one my 3 year old son told me yesterday.

There is way too much information left out of this account of the incident to be credible. The chain of events in this account of the story do not even roll smoothly from one act to the next. The beginning makes sense, but it all starts going downhill from where the officer showed up on scene. This leads me to believe that there are facts left out and facts made up.
 
Law enforcement does not count as a "member of the public" while on duty in most states. I didn't make it up. And I never said that an officers testimony doesn't count or that a citizen MUST complain first. You need to go back re-read my posts.

Here is the problem as I see it. You and others seem to take any outside reference I make as an excuse to trail off of the case being discussed.


Sure.

You didn't answer my question, since Im apparently not up to speed on this "a citizen must complain" stuff.

If an adult male goes outside in his own from yard and waves his exposed penis around for all the world to see, and an officer sees it but does not receive this "citizen complaint" about it, can the officer not act upon this crime of indecent exposure?
 
I'd say following the officer outside just to yell the same things you already communicated to the officer inside would not be a 'legitimate purpose' and would only serve as grandstanding, for attention.
You can't prove that in court and you know it. There is no statutory authority to confine Gates to his house or curtail his freedom of speech.


Because Gates was still berating him, and yet he no longer had the exigent circumstances to be in the home.
Okay, so he did invite Gates outside. There was no legitimate purpose in the officer doing that. He could have just left. But he didn't, he invited him to follow him outside. If he knows Gates is berating him then why would he want to invited him outside to continue the incident? So again I ask you, why did he invite him outside...because your answer does not suffice.

I believe it said that the other Officers were assembled outside the residence. I could be wrong though. Im going off of yesterday's memory, and I had court today so I have lots of little facts running around in my head.
According to the report there were several officers outside the home, the caller, and now about 7 citizens.

Even if these were the normal members of society, they gathered here because the conduct occuring INSIDE was disturbing.
Prove it. Nowhere in the report did the officer say any of those present had their peace disturbed or is there any testimony that they gathered because of what Gates was doing. That's the kind of **** you have to PROVE if you are going to charge somebody with this offense. It's called evidence.
Have you ever heard of a noise ordinance? Not to say this was in violation of a noise ordinance, but think about the same situation. There are still limitations of what you can/can't do even if you are on your own property if the actions effect the public.
Absolutely I've heard of a "noise complaint." Again, in many states a peace officer cannot arrest or cite someone for noise complaints unless a citizen files a complaint with the officer first as an officers peace cannot be disturbed while he or she is on duty. I'm sure there are some exceptions in municipalities. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.
* What is Disturbing the Peace?

Penal Code 415 describes Disturbing the Peace in three ways. The first way is to fight or challenge someone to fight in a public place. The second is to maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise. The last, and most confusing one, is to use offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. A person's freedom of speech has to be weighed before using the last way to disturbed one's peace.

* Who's peace can be disturbed?

By Law, a peace officer's peace cannot be disturbed. This means that if someone calls the police for a loud stereo complaint and the officer hears the music, that officer cannot take action if the person refuses to turn down the music. This would require the person, who's peace is being disturbed, to sign a citizen's arrest and the officer can take action based on the citizen's arrest.

Or this...
A person's peace can be disturbed in many different ways; it all depends on the individual. Loud music, construction noise and barking dogs are all examples of potentially disturbing noise. What is disturbing to one person may not be disturbing to another. The courts take into consideration a "reasonable person of normal sensitivity" when determining whether the noise violates the law.

A police officer's "peace" cannot be disturbed. Therefore, it is necessary for a private person to make a complaint against a noise offender.

This precept goes all the way back to the 20's. It's like this in most states.

A grown man cannot run out into his yard, whip out his dick, and piss in the grass for all the world to see,
Red herring Caine and not applicable. You can't run out into your inner city yard and shoot a machine gun either.

Nor can he turn up a stereo so loud as to be heard 4 houses down causing a disturbance.
And you need a complainant for that to stick. So?

Or was it because they could hear Gates from outside?
Well you are doing nothing more than speculating now because this hasn't been articulated anywhere in the report.
Depends on where you live.
So people don't generally come out and look to see what a bunch of cop cars are doing across the street? Really? Whatever. :roll:


Show me the law that says you can't walk around naked in your own house in a glass see through house and no curtains or blinds.
Show me the law that says you can't whip out your dick and piss in the direction of the street while smiling and waiving at cars.
What does that have to do with this discussion? Did Gates do either of those? Both of which are crimes and you know it.

Which he already did inside the home. Coming outside to yell the same things shows he was trying to make a scene.
Keep on pretending you can read his mind and know what his purpose was. Again, you know that would never stand up in court. Further the officer never sufficiently articulated that this was Gates purpose or intent. Why? He conveniently says that the citizen appeared "alarmed" yet never goes further. Alarmed how? Did any of them say they were alarmed? They "appeared" alarmed in his best judgement but he never confirms that with them. Bad report, bad police work.

Wow. In that case we can't prove anything that shows intent unless we create a machine that learns to read minds. :roll:
Actually you can prove intent if you sufficiently document the facts of the case. Elements of conduct must documented in order to prove your case, that's all. That wasn't done in this case and that is the problem.

I disagree for the reasons I articulated in the previous posts of mine.
Okay.

Im allowing his actions to show his intent. If we depend on suspects to be honest about their intent we'd never get convictions.
You can't do that in this case. It's not like he fired a gun into a crowd at the mall. You have to prove his intent was to alarm the public.

Apparently the officer cannot speak onbehalf of what he witnessed, is that what you are saying? Officers are not a part of the public I guess.
Sure he can, but the officer is not part of the public when he is on duty, and thus cannot be the victim of a crime against the public. Can you provide evidence that an officer is "part of the public" while he is on duty?

So if a guy pisses in the direction of traffic, an officer sees it, but nobody comes up and says, "He is pissing in traffic I want him arrested" the officer has to shrug and drive off?
I didn't say that, why are you injecting red herrings? You're bringing an entirely different crime into the argument for the purpose of trying to win this argument. It won't work. I was talking about peace disturbance, in fact I was pretty clear about what I was describing. We were talking about peace disturbance and disorderly conduct in which the "public" is disturbed or alarmed.

You're talking about indecent exposure and urinating in public. The elements of the crime are completely different. You don't need to take my comments out of the context of the argument I'm making in order to refute them.

In your opinion.
You're correct. And given what we know my opinion appears to be very much in line with reason. Care to offer a counter opinion on why this case was dropped?
 
You didn't answer my question, since Im apparently not up to speed on this "a citizen must complain" stuff.
We were talking about peace disturbance Caine.
If an adult male goes outside in his own from yard and waves his exposed penis around for all the world to see, and an officer sees it but does not receive this "citizen complaint" about it, can the officer not act upon this crime of indecent exposure?
Different crime, different elements. What does the statute say? Because that is what is what you to go off of. Not our opinion, I'm going off of what the statutes say and the interpretations the courts have rendered.

I have never said officers cannot be witnesses to crimes and you know that. So just stop asserting that is my position. In certain cases a cop cannot be a victim. Some statutes are very clear on who constitutes a victim, as in the case of noise complaints or peace disturbances. "Public indecency" is a different issue because the crime is occurring "in public," in other words in a common area. Nothing in the statute identifies the "public" as the victim. In the case of Gates, the statute lists the "public" as the victim, not a necessarily a location. For that you have to have a member of the public actually be alarmed in order for the charge to be valid. Again this is a problem as this cop did not articulate which member of the public was actually alarmed, only that some unidentified citizens "appeared alarmed." That doesn't cut it, that's not evidence.

A cop can pull up to an burglary in progress in which he sees a suspect going into a residence. If the owner comes out and says "I refuse to press charges" the state has no case against this man as there is no victim in the crime. In this case, no victim-no crime. No crime-no PC for arrest.

An exception would be domestic violence or a fighting in public ordinance.
 
This explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. And I'll explain why I find it less credible than the Officer's report.

This is not very solid at all. The picture it paints is a man asking for a name and badge number, and an officer just standing, starring off into space apparently. This portion doesn't fit in with the time frame, and it appears as if too much information was left out. I wonder why that is?

Again, wayy too much information left out for this thing to run smoothly. Gates would have us believe this story? He walks outside, and yet again a bunch of Officers just starring off into space as he asks a question and then as they wait for him to step outside arrest him. For what exactly?


This story makes about as much sense as one my 3 year old son told me yesterday.

There is way too much information left out of this account of the incident to be credible. The chain of events in this account of the story do not even roll smoothly from one act to the next. The beginning makes sense, but it all starts going downhill from where the officer showed up on scene. This leads me to believe that there are facts left out and facts made up.

I don't buy his account of events either, but I can't prove it to be a lie. He's basically saying the officer was ignoring his requests and refusing to provide the information he requested. He's painting himself the poor victim who did nothing wrong.

I simply wanted to point out that there are two sides to every story. I think both these guys are full of **** about how it actually went down. I think two idiots ran into each other that day and the result is a news story. That's what I think.
 
You can't prove that in court and you know it. There is no statutory authority to confine Gates to his house or curtail his freedom of speech.
What is the statutory authority to curtail my freedom of expression if I feel like playing helicopter with my penis in my front yard?




Okay, so he did invite Gates outside. There was no legitimate purpose in the officer doing that. He could have just left. But he didn't, he invited him to follow him outside. If he knows Gates is berating him then why would he want to invited him outside to continue the incident? So again I ask you, why did he invite him outside...because your answer does not suffice.
The officer did leave, to go outside to finish the discussion, as his presence inside the house was no longer justified.
Im certain if Gates is anything like the racists ive dealt with, he would ask a question and then before you can get a response out commence to talking over the officer again when they got outside. Of course, its not listed anywhere in the report so it didn't happen that way, even though the yelling cursing and swearing was not described in detail, and was very general.




According to the report there were several officers outside the home, the caller, and now about 7 citizens.
Outside the home could be 2 houses down showing Timmy how to ride a bike. Its still outside the home.



Prove it. Nowhere in the report did the officer say any of those present had their peace disturbed or is there any testimony that they gathered because of what Gates was doing. That's the kind of **** you have to PROVE if you are going to charge somebody with this offense. It's called evidence.
If someone is doing something else and they are bothered by the commotion to stop doing what they are doing and look over at the creator of said disturbance than I would believe that they have had their peace disturbed.

Until you argue that point with the penis in the front yard thing I'll keep to my opinion on this one as well.


Absolutely I've heard of a "noise complaint." Again, in many states a peace officer cannot arrest or cite someone for noise complaints unless a citizen files a complaint with the officer first as an officers peace cannot be disturbed while he or she is on duty. I'm sure there are some exceptions in municipalities. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.


Or this...


This precept goes all the way back to the 20's. It's like this in most states.
Strangely enough, I can go down the street and cite someone for a noise ordinance violation if I hear the violation and believe it to be in line with the elements of violating the noise ordinance.



Red herring Caine and not applicable. You can't run out into your inner city yard and shoot a machine gun either.
But being a beligerant asshole is allowed, because you say so.



And you need a complainant for that to stick. So?
You must also need a complaint for it to stick if you see a guy swinging his dick around in his front yard first too, since 'society/public' is your victim right?



So people don't generally come out and look to see what a bunch of cop cars are doing across the street? Really? Whatever. :roll:
Depends on the location. This doesn't happen everywhere.

What does that have to do with this discussion? Did Gates do either of those? Both of which are crimes and you know it.
Not if nobody is filing a complaint apparently.


Keep on pretending you can read his mind and know what his purpose was. Again, you know that would never stand up in court.
Yes. Lets suspend charging 1st degree murder too until we can read minds.


Actually you can prove intent if you sufficiently document the facts of the case. Elements of conduct must documented in order to prove your case, that's all. That wasn't done in this case and that is the problem.
I disagree.



You can't do that in this case. It's not like he fired a gun into a crowd at the mall. You have to prove his intent was to alarm the public.
And I've already shown where that was articulated. You still have shown me no other purpose someone would have to intentionally yell when warned he was being unnecessarily loud, while repeating the same garbage over and over and not have the intent to draw a crowd. I'd contend that anyone yelling with their listener 6 feet away is doing so to draw attention.


Sure he can, but the officer is not part of the public when he is on duty, and thus cannot be the victim of a crime against the public. Can you provide evidence that an officer is "part of the public" while he is on duty?
Yes. He is a human being and a member of society. :roll:


I didn't say that, why are you injecting red herrings? You're bringing an entirely different crime into the argument for the purpose of trying to win this argument. It won't work. I was talking about peace disturbance, in fact I was pretty clear about what I was describing. We were talking about peace disturbance and disorderly conduct in which the "public" is disturbed or alarmed.
And Ive demonstrated where the officer articulated that the public was alarmed.


You're talking about indecent exposure and urinating in public. The elements of the crime are completely different. You don't need to take my comments out of the context of the argument I'm making in order to refute them.
The victim is the same "society/public" and you are claiming that for all society/public victim crimes, you need a specific complainant in order to file the charge.


You're correct. And given what we know my opinion appears to be very much in line with reason. Care to offer a counter opinion on why this case was dropped?
Political reasons obviously.
 
What is the statutory authority to curtail my freedom of expression if I feel like playing helicopter with my penis in my front yard?
Red herring. You didn't answer the question. Why?

The officer did leave, to go outside to finish the discussion, as his presence inside the house was no longer justified.
Im certain if Gates is anything like the racists ive dealt with, he would ask a question and then before you can get a response out commence to talking over the officer again when they got outside. Of course, its not listed anywhere in the report so it didn't happen that way, even though the yelling cursing and swearing was not described in detail, and was very general.
How did that answer my question? Why do you think he invited Gates outside? Was it to lay the groundwork for a disorderly conduct arrest? Because there is absolutely no legitimate reason, if his work was done, to invite him outside to continue the incident. Was the officer was deliberately inviting this man to continue the incident? The officers judgment is questionable.

Outside the home could be 2 houses down showing Timmy how to ride a bike. Its still outside the home.
Yeah, but then again we really don't any ****ing clue where they were because this guy did a ****ty CYA report to go along with his ****ty case.
If someone is doing something else and they are bothered by the commotion to stop doing what they are doing and look over at the creator of said disturbance than I would believe that they have had their peace disturbed.
No, you would have to speculate they had their peace disturbed. Because unless they complain to you that it happened, it didn't as far as the law in concerned.

Until you argue that point with the penis in the front yard thing I'll keep to my opinion on this one as well.
I've already addressed your irrelevant red herring, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Strangely enough, I can go down the street and cite someone for a noise ordinance violation if I hear the violation and believe it to be in line with the elements of violating the noise ordinance.
Strangely enough many cops can't do that.

But being a beligerant asshole is allowed, because you say so.
Show me a law against it.

You must also need a complaint for it to stick if you see a guy swinging his dick around in his front yard first too, since 'society/public' is your victim right?
Did I say that? I was very clear in explaining the difference between a violation against "the public" and a violation that takes place "in public." You can stop straw manning me any time you like.


Depends on the location. This doesn't happen everywhere.
Okay, whatever.

Not if nobody is filing a complaint apparently.
Of course I didn't say that.

Yes. Lets suspend charging 1st degree murder too until we can read minds.
Culpable mental state is the difference between 1st degree murder and Manslaughter.

I disagree.
Okay.

And I've already shown where that was articulated. You still have shown me no other purpose someone would have to intentionally yell when warned he was being unnecessarily loud, while repeating the same garbage over and over and not have the intent to draw a crowd. I'd contend that anyone yelling with their listener 6 feet away is doing so to draw attention.
No Caine, you've given your opinion, which is not supported by the facts that were documented in this case. You're speculation about the case is no substitution for what is written in the police report.
Yes. He is a human being and a member of society. :roll:
That doesn't explain the situation statutorily. Again this is simply your perception, and philosophically its correct. However legally it's certainly not the case in many states.

And Ive demonstrated where the officer articulated that the public was alarmed.
No you didn't, because he didn't. He wrote that they "appeared alarmed." Appearing alarmed and actually being alarmed are two different things. You need a victim to actually state they are alarmed for that to be true.

The victim is the same "society/public" and you are claiming that for all society/public victim crimes, you need a specific complainant in order to file the charge.
No, and I've clearly stated there is a difference in crimes in which the elements involve "the public" as a victim and "public" as a location. There are absolute differences and if you think otherwise you are sorely mistaken.

Political reasons obviously.
I figured as much. Never mind the case is **** and should have never been made.

I've stated my points, they aren't going to change.

Peace.
 
I used to run a large homeless shelter. Every once in a while, we'd get these "Everything bad that happens to me is because I'm BLACK!!!" dudes. If you tried to enforce the rules....you were picking on them because they were black. If they worked for you and were caught using their position to deal meth, they were only being fired because they were....BLACK! So your problem is you're black...waaah! Some of us have real problems. This professor is just another "Everything that's bad that happens to me is because I'm black!!!" dudes, no better, just the same....pathetic.:roll:
 
I used to run a large homeless shelter. Every once in a while, we'd get these "Everything bad that happens to me is because I'm BLACK!!!" dudes. If you tried to enforce the rules....you were picking on them because they were black. If they worked for you and were caught using their position to deal meth, they were only being fired because they were....BLACK! So your problem is you're black...waaah! Some of us have real problems. This professor is just another "Everything that's bad that happens to me is because I'm black!!!" dudes, no better, just the same....pathetic.:roll:

And which homeless shelter was that? It's awfully amazing that we get a guy like yourself that ran a homeless shelter coming to DP. Which one was it?

The next thing we'll be hearing is that there was a guy that was 4th in line for the Microsoft corporation.
 
Last edited:
And which homeless shelter was that? It's awfully amazing that we get a guy like yourself that ran a homeless shelter coming to DP. Which one was it?
It was Community House in Boise Id. which had a capacity of nearly 300. It was the only shelter of it's type in the Northwest, which had a family floor and transitional housing. I was the staff supervisor, and in the end, before our corrupt mayor and city council shut it down illegally, was the shelter supervisor. Feel free to check the facts on that including two tv interviews if you think I'm bull****ting.
 
And which homeless shelter was that? It's awfully amazing that we get a guy like yourself that ran a homeless shelter coming to DP. Which one was it?

The next thing we'll be hearing is that there was a guy that was 4th in line for the Microsoft corporation.
Further more, why is it awefully amazing?
 
What's the matter nextra? Cat got your tongue? You implied I'm bull****ting about my background and I'm not suprised-alway impune the character of those who disagree with you-that's your typical M.O. I'll gladly take you on on this. Yes, I'm a conservative who not only has been homeless, but advocated for the homeless professionally, and can prove it. So you accused me of lying, the ball's in your court, idiot.
 
Gates told CNN Wednesday that although charges had been dropped, he will keep the issue alive.

"This is not about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," Gates told CNN's Soledad O'Brien.

Gates said the Cambridge mayor had called him to apologize about the incident. Simmons, Cambridge's first black female mayor, confirmed to CNN that she apologized to Gates.

Cambridge top cop stands by department after Harvard arrest - CNN.com

Of course Gates is keeping this alive. He LOVES the attention this is getting him, as well as the sympathy factor. Oh, and of course a fellow black person is apologizing to him. :roll:
 
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.



This is a lie. no one was roughed up.
 
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.


here is the page of the police report in question, thus far Crowleys account has been 100% accurate.


0723092gates2.gif
 
here is the page of the police report in question, thus far Crowleys account has been 100% accurate.


0723092gates2.gif

How do you know it's "100% accurate?" Because the police officer says so? You have his account and you have Gates account. Personally I put more stock in the officers report, but I will not go so far as to say it's 100% accurate because I was not there and there isn't nearly enough information. I've read the entire report and even if everything in the report is accurate, the officer failed to document enough information to actually uphold his reasoning for the arrest. It's actually a very poor report for the case he was stretching to make.

The police department admitted they were wrong in a public statement, that the incident was regrettable, and not one of their better moments. You don't do that when you are right.

Gates was an asshole, but that is not a crime.
 
How do you know it's "100% accurate?" Because the police officer says so? You have his account and you have Gates account. Personally I put more stock in the officers report, but I will not go so far as to say it's 100% accurate because I was not there and there isn't nearly enough information. I've read the entire report and even if everything in the report is accurate, the officer failed to document enough information to actually uphold his reasoning for the arrest. It's actually a very poor report for the case he was stretching to make.

The police department admitted they were wrong in a public statement, that the incident was regrettable, and not one of their better moments. You don't do that when you are right.

Gates was an asshole, but that is not a crime.

Your points are well taken. My personal belief is that the police report is 100% accurate because, even reading the report, I concluded that the arrest was questionable. I didn't see the police officer attempting to exaggerate facts to substantiate the arrest under any circumstances.

Thanks for posting the apology in the other thread (or was it in this thread?).

2 asides:
(1) I was born in Cambridge, MA. ;)
(2) What kind of scholar says he wants to talk to "your momma"?
 
Last edited:
How do you know it's "100% accurate?" Because the police officer says so? You have his account and you have Gates account. Personally I put more stock in the officers report, but I will not go so far as to say it's 100% accurate because I was not there and there isn't nearly enough information. I've read the entire report and even if everything in the report is accurate, the officer failed to document enough information to actually uphold his reasoning for the arrest. It's actually a very poor report for the case he was stretching to make.

The police department admitted they were wrong in a public statement, that the incident was regrettable, and not one of their better moments. You don't do that when you are right.





The picture cooborates the officers statement, the officer on tv today has never changed his story. and in the report he makes notes of numerous civillian and police witnesses... I think that to me, indicates who is telling the truth here.






Gates was an asshole, but that is not a crime.


Breaking and entering, (which if your own home is not a crime but...) failing to show ID, he could have been arrested on the spot for both of that given the fact that he did break and enter, and failed to prove his identity ...


Furthermore, he was warned about disorderly conduct. Now I might agree being an asshole to a cop should not be illegal, but fact is as it stands now disorderyly conduct falls under this perview..


Imagine this was some college kid instead of big shot bigot race baite professor? DO you think the kid would get the same response of "cooler heads shouldove" response?
 
Back
Top Bottom