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.
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?