• 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

ARealConservative said:
so every time someone drives on a lawn, it is reckless driving?

Is that your position?
Click to expand...

Depends on what route they took to occupy the lawn. If they drove across the sidewalk, then you bet it's reckless driving.
 
Now answer these same questions of mine...... with one caveat...


What if I was black? :shock:



(oh no he di int...... :2razz::2razz::2razz:)
 
Caine said:
No, that is not my position.
But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth to then call me a power abusing bastard who trumps up charges.

Read my 2nd reply to the good rev.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should reread my initial post, which is quite factual.

In most states, reckless driving will not stick if it occurred on private property.

So what was with all the air drop rhetoric?

If reckless driving occured prior to getting on the private property, it doesn't fit in with what I wrote at all, now does it?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Now answer these same questions of mine...... with one caveat...


What if I was black? :shock:



(oh no he di int...... :2razz::2razz::2razz:)
Click to expand...

Im sorry, black?

Im colorblind.

My colleagues tell me my best friend is black, but I can't tell.

colbert_black_friend.jpg
 
ARealConservative said:
perhaps you should reread my initial post, which is quite factual.

In most states, reckless driving will not stick if it occurred on private property.

So what was with all the air drop rhetoric?

If reckless driving occured prior to getting on the private property, it doesn't fit in with what I wrote at all, now does it?
Click to expand...

It has to occur on the "public streets or highways" or a "public vehicular area"

Which could include a parking lot if it is opened to the public.
 
Caine said:
It has to occur on the "public streets or highways" or a "public vehicular area"

Which could include a parking lot if it is opened to the public.
Click to expand...

the bold section varies greatly from state to state.
 
ARealConservative said:
the bold section varies greatly from state to state.
Click to expand...
Im aware of this.

In my state you can charge for DWI if someone is drunk driving in a parking lot.
Some states you can't.

Personally, allowing the charge of DWI in parking lots forces drunk drivers to take responsibility for their criminal act when they go smashing into 16 cars parked at Wally world while drunk at 12am.
 
Caine said:
I might be getting you mixed up with someone else earlier in this thread (and I'll be damned if im going back to search) but im pretty certain you informed me that citizens don't have to go to the magistrate to obtain warrants that they deal with the police directly and they make an on scene arrest in cases they didn't witness anything.

I might be wrong about it being you though.
Click to expand...

When an officer responds to a call of a crime he didn't witness, and there are witnesses present at the scene, and those witnesses give statements to the officers, the officer then has enough PC to make an arrest on the crime (well most crimes)...even if he didn't witness it. Victim and witness statements are sufficient PC for arrest in most cases. The officer is not mandated to arrest, but he can. The citizens do not have to go before any magistrate, the merely need to make an official statement to the police. If they are found to be lying they can be arrested for making a false police report.

It's like that in most states. Obviously not where you're at.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
When an officer responds to a call of a crime he didn't witness, and there are witnesses present at the scene, and those witnesses give statements to the officers, the officer then has enough PC to make an arrest on the crime...even if he didn't witness it. Victim and witness statements are sufficient PC for arrest in most cases. The citizens do not have to before any magistrate, the merely need to make an official statement to the police. If they are found to be lying they can be arrested for making a false police report.

It's like that in most states.
Click to expand...


Well. not in mine.

And personally, I like it our way better.

Forces a victim to take personal responsibility for prosecuting someone for a crime, and cuts down on people using the police to 'git' someone else.

"Ima call da po-leece and dey gonna 'git' you"
 
Caine said:
Im aware of this.

In my state you can charge for DWI if someone is drunk driving in a parking lot.
Some states you can't.

Personally, allowing the charge of DWI in parking lots forces drunk drivers to take responsibility for their criminal act when they go smashing into 16 cars parked at Wally world while drunk at 12am.
Click to expand...

In Missouri it's like that. You can be charged with DWI/DUI for driving a riding a lawnmower in your yard while you're drunk. No ****.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Well. not in mine.

And personally, I like it our way better.

Forces a victim to take personal responsibility for prosecuting someone for a crime, and cuts down on people using the police to 'git' someone else.

"Ima call da po-leece and dey gonna 'git' you"
Click to expand...

I can see where there would be some benefit to that system. It appears slow and cumbersome to me, but like you said...it would cut down on "revenge by calling the cops" cases.
 
Lerxst said:
In Missouri it's like that. You can be charged with DWI/DUI for driving a riding a lawnmower in your yard. No ****.
Click to expand...

In your own ****ing yard?
Thats ridiculous!
 
Lerxst said:
I can see where there would be some benefit to that system. It appears slow and cumbersome to me, but like you said...it would cut down on "revenge by calling the cops" cases.
Click to expand...


Slow and cumbersome is right.

Alot of **** doesn't go through the system because of it.

On the other hand, thats a good thing, it filters out the problems that the complainants don't truly care about.
 
Lerxst said:
In Missouri it's like that. You can be charged with DWI/DUI for driving a riding a lawnmower in your yard while you're drunk. No ****.
Click to expand...

In Alabama, you can get a DUI on horseback.
 
Lerxst said:
In Missouri it's like that. You can be charged with DWI/DUI for driving a riding a lawnmower in your yard while you're drunk. No ****.
Click to expand...

That's criminal. It's your damned property! Things like this make me believe that a lot of stuff is crafted by lawmakers to just bring in money to the State, regardless of whether or not it's something they actually have the power to do.

I had a couple buddies who picked up a busted ol Buick from the junkyard one day, they spent a couple weeks fixing it up, then got completely ****ed on tequila. They drove the car around the yard and finally into the big ol' tree in middle of the front yard. Took it back to the junkyard the next day, and I'm pretty sure that had been the plan all along.
 
First I would like to say I dont think the cop is a racist. But we all have our racist moments no matter how you live you life. You may not notice it but it becomes apparent on any side of this race issue.

But i would like to say that the cop was completely wrong in arresting Gates.

For one he was in his own house for two to take some to jail for something said (allegedly) in their own home or property that is not a threat is a clear violation of freedom of speech.

The cop is not a Judge his job is not to interpret the law as he so sees it his job is to enforce the laws as they are written and allow a judge to interpret the law correctly after an arrest is made. The fact is any judge would have thrown this particular case out very quickly.

Its not that the cop is racist it is we all are racist because we all cannot understand both sides of this issue and we pick sides instead of following whats right and just.

We all just need to reflect on that thought of choosing sides and what does that say about us. That we dont care about others we just want to win an arguement and not solve a problem
 
It's pretty interesting that of allllll the hoopla this incident is getting, not one person has questioned the 'neighbor' who called in the "breakin by two black men with backpacks".

Says a whole lot about refusing to grant interviews and just keeping your damn mouth shut.

I guess I understand Gates. After years of learning to just put up with ****, sometimes you just wanna go ape**** on someone. He shoulda picked a better incident though.
 
NDNdancer said:
It's pretty interesting that of allllll the hoopla this incident is getting, not one person has questioned the 'neighbor' who called in the "breakin by two black men with backpacks".

Says a whole lot about refusing to grant interviews and just keeping your damn mouth shut.

I guess I understand Gates. After years of learning to just put up with ****, sometimes you just wanna go ape**** on someone. He shoulda picked a better incident though.
Click to expand...


sure they did:


Gates caller didn’t cite race, police say - The Boston Globe
 
Okay I talked about this in another thread before seeing that this thread existed. I don't think this was a racist incident but rather a cop seeking retaliation for Gates being a dick. Even though I think Gates did have a right to be pissed off. First of all the witness claimed she saw two black men carrying backpacks. Gates just got back from his trip and had suitcases. How can those be mistaken for backpacks? So once the cop went into the house and indentified Gates as the rightful owner of the house it should have stopped there. The whole reason the cop was there because of suspicion of a burglary. After identifying Gates probable cause disappeared and it should have been left at that. Now Gates was pretty peeved because the officer wouldn't leave and wouldn't give identification. So yes Gates overreacted but overreacting in your home isn't a crime.

At this point Crowley did not have enough to charge Gates on disorderly conduct because in the state of Mass it requires a disturbance in a public area where a crowd has gathered and a disruption of the peace. That's when Crowley said that Gates would have to come outside to get his ID. At this point Crowley was able to create the crime to charge Gates with as a crowd has gathered. Sure Gates was a dick but it was a bigger dick of a move by Crowley to arrest him and embarrass him in front of the neighbors.
 
PogueMoran said:
Okay I talked about this in another thread before seeing that this thread existed. I don't think this was a racist incident but rather a cop seeking retaliation for Gates being a dick. Even though I think Gates did have a right to be pissed off. First of all the witness claimed she saw two black men carrying backpacks. Gates just got back from his trip and had suitcases. How can those be mistaken for backpacks? So once the cop went into the house and indentified Gates as the rightful owner of the house it should have stopped there. The whole reason the cop was there because of suspicion of a burglary. After identifying Gates probable cause disappeared and it should have been left at that. Now Gates was pretty peeved because the officer wouldn't leave and wouldn't give identification. So yes Gates overreacted but overreacting in your home isn't a crime.

At this point Crowley did not have enough to charge Gates on disorderly conduct because in the state of Mass it requires a disturbance in a public area where a crowd has gathered and a disruption of the peace. That's when Crowley said that Gates would have to come outside to get his ID. At this point Crowley was able to create the crime to charge Gates with as a crowd has gathered. Sure Gates was a dick but it was a bigger dick of a move by Crowley to arrest him and embarrass him in front of the neighbors.
Click to expand...




Gates caller didn’t cite race, police say - The Boston Globe
 
Code:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Gates caller didn’t cite race, police say - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...

Okay so the media got that part wrong. But the gist of my argument had nothing to do with race. Once again Crowley had no right to make the arrest as probable cause no longer applied when he IDed Gates

Most states have a pretty standard definition of what disorderly conduct means. There are generally 3 clauses.

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

Okay so if anything Gates may have reached one of the clauses in 2. But 2 alone isn't enough to arrest someone. Being inside his own home he did not fit clause 3.

Also in Commonwealth v. Mulvey, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 579 it was determined that the presence of a police officer is not enough for a place to be considered to be a public area. Thus Gates' behavior was not considered to be public in accordance to the findings in Commonwealth v Mulvey.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom