• 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

Lerxst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you not read as I did that he took notice of people in the area who were interrupted in their actions and stopped to look over at the loud commotion of ignorant rhetoric coming out of Gate's mouth?

I don't know how many more straws you have to reach for at this point.
 
Caine said:
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?
Click to expand...
Have you read the actual statute? There is no wiggle room there. There is a definitive culpable mental state that must be present to have committed this crime. A crime against the PUBLIC, not the police. There is NO citizen complainant and there is no evidence that Gates intent was to be a nuisance to the public. It's not articulated in the report ANYWHERE.

You are wrong on this one.
Click to expand...
No, I am quite right.
 
Caine said:
Did you not read as I did that he took notice of people in the area who were interrupted in their actions and stopped to look over at the loud commotion of ignorant rhetoric coming out of Gate's mouth?
Click to expand...
Negative. They chose to come out and watch. They didn't have to, he didn't go onto their lawn or deliberately drag them into it. They decided of their own accord to stop and gawk. The issue was confined to Gates residence until the police officer asked him to come outside and talk, where onlooker purposely chose to come and join the crowd. They injected themselves into this event. He didn't force them to watch.

You have not proven he had purpose to cause an annoyance to them. That is the element of the crime. And I don't care what he was saying, whether it was ignorant or not is irrelevant. Nothing he did violated an actual Massachusetts law.

I don't know how many more straws you have to reach for at this point.
Click to expand...
I'm not reaching, I'm reading the law and applying it the man's actions.
 
Last edited:
And let me reiterate...Gates is a loud mouthed, race baiting douche bag. But he shouldn't have been arrested.

And Obama should have kept his big mouth shut.
 
Lerxst said:
Negative. They chose to come out and watch. They didn't have to, he didn't go onto their lawn or deliberately drag them into it. They decided of their own accord to stop and gawk. You have not proven he had purpose to cause an annoyance to them. That is the element of the crime. And I don't care what he was saying, whether it was ignorant or not is irrelevant. Nothing he did violated an actual Massachusetts law.


I'm not reaching, I'm reading the law and applying it the man's actions.
Click to expand...


Again, I stated that a reasonable person does not need to yell and repeat the same message over and over through normal communication.

The fact that he came outside to yell and scream the same message over and over and not stop yelling and calm down when asked to do so shows that he had the intent to cause a disturbance, which he was doing.
 
Caine said:
Again, I stated that a reasonable person does not need to yell and repeat the same message over and over through normal communication.

The fact that he came outside to yell and scream the same message over and over and not stop yelling and calm down when asked to do so shows that he had the intent to cause a disturbance, which he was doing.
Click to expand...

No, the man was obviously upset at how he had been treated. Who says he has to be reasonable? There is no law against being unreasonable. There is no law against repeating yourself over and over. We don't know what went down, all we know is what he said and what the report said. Regardless, the event was confined to his house, they asked to take it outside, where a crowd of onlookers gathered to gawk. His emotions were aimed at the police and so were his actions. There is no proof he intended to disturb the public.

Where is the complaint from the citizen? Without that there is no PC for the arrest.

We aren't going to agree on this, and that's okay. We are both just repeating our positions at this point.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
No, the man was obviously upset at how he had been treated. Who says he has to be reasonable? There is no law against being unreasonable. There is no law against repeating yourself over and over. We don't know what went down, all we know is what he said and what the report said. Regardless, the event was confined to his house, they asked to take it outside, where a crowd of onlookers gathered to gawk. His emotions were aimed at the police and so were his actions. There is no proof he intended to disturb the public.

Where is the complaint from the citizen? Without that there is no PC for the arrest.

We aren't going to agree on this, and that's okay. We are both just repeating our positions at this point.
Click to expand...

Did you read ZETTEL, COMMONWEALTH vs., 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471

Show me where there were complaints from the citizens in the other cases mentioned in the link, where the statute was upheld.

EDIT: Most of those cases were also cases where the disorderly conduct was being directed at the police. ;)
 
Lerxst said:
No, the man was obviously upset at how he had been treated.
Yeah, it was so awful. He breaks into a house, and the cop that arrives asks him to show some ID. The nerve of that racist cop!


Lerxst said:
Where is the complaint from the citizen? Without that there is no PC for the arrest.
Click to expand...

Utter rot.

The cop observed the behavior himself. In fact, on public disorderly charges he almost always has to be the witness, unless the accused has committed an act of assault or destruction of property.

Wake up and stop kissing PC ass.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, it was so awful. He breaks into a house, and the cop that arrives asks him to show some ID. The nerve of that racist cop!
Click to expand...

Because you know exactly how it went down at that moment in time right? And who gives a **** if Gates called him a racist? Some people are douche bags. There's no law against that. If there were some people on this forum would be posting while serving life sentences.
 
Lerxst said:
Because you know exactly how it went down at that moment in time right? And who gives a **** if Gates called him a racist? Some people are douche bags. There's no law against that. If there were some people on this forum would be posting while serving life sentences.
Click to expand...
:rofl

Thats something we can agree with.
 
Lerxst said:
No, the man was obviously upset at how he had been treated. Who says he has to be reasonable? There is no law against being unreasonable.
Click to expand...

No, that's actually not true. Most state codes are based on the concept that people have a duty to behave reasonably.


Where is the complaint from the citizen? Without that there is no PC for the arrest.
Click to expand...

The police observing the conduct IS probable cause.
 
Caine said:
Did you read ZETTEL, COMMONWEALTH vs., 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471

Show me where there were complaints from the citizens in the other cases mentioned in the link, where the statute was upheld.
Click to expand...
I absolutely did and in that case the cops lost. In the very few cases that were referenced the conduct of the defendants was very much different that what Gates did. Gates wasn't intoxicated, he was resisting apprehension in any way, he was shoving his hands in his pockets when told not to, he wasn't fighting in public. In those cases the cops had more elements of the crime with which to make their case.

In the Gates case the level of behavior did not rise to the same degree as that of the defendants in the cases cited. I don't have to reference citizen complainants in those cases because they are not relevant to the argument I am making about the circumstances of THIS case. I cited that case for two reasons:
  1. It had the statutory definintion of the crime in question
  2. It provided an example of what disorderly conduct was not.

EDIT: Most of those cases were also cases where the disorderly conduct was being directed at the police. ;)
Click to expand...
In those cases the elements of the crime were different than in the Gates case. There were additional factors such as public intoxication, resisting apprehension, fighting, etc. It wasn't just a subject yelling at the cops. Which is all that Gates did.
 
Harshaw said:
No, that's actually not true. Most state codes are based on the concept that people have a duty to behave reasonably.
Click to expand...

Please provide sources, definitions, interpretations, etc. I'll have this argument with you.


The police observing the conduct IS probable cause.
Click to expand...
No it's not. The police did not observe a criminal act, and that is the problem. Police observed a man who was upset and yelling at them. That's it. There was no crime being committed for them to observe, thus no PC.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Utter rot.

The cop observed the behavior himself.
Click to expand...
Observed what? A man yelling at him? No ****. There is no crime there. Do you know "elements of a crime" and "culpable mental state" mean there genius?
In fact, on public disorderly charges he almost always has to be the witness,
Click to expand...
Horse****. Don't talk about things you obviously know nothing about.
unless the accused has committed an act of assault or destruction of property.
Click to expand...
Citations or just stfu before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. I did this job for a decade and a half smart guy, let's go down this road.
Wake up and stop kissing PC ass.
Click to expand...
Go back to **** talking Obama, it's about all you're good at.
 
Lerxst said:
I absolutely did and in that case the cops lost. In the very few cases that were referenced the conduct of the defendants was very much different that what Gates did. Gates wasn't intoxicated, he was resisting apprehension in any way, he was shoving his hands in his pockets when told not to, he wasn't fighting in public. In those cases the cops had more elements of the crime with which to make their case.

In the Gates case the level of behavior did not rise to the same degree as that of the defendants in the cases cited. I don't have to reference citizen complainants in those cases because they are not relevant to the argument I am making about the circumstances of THIS case. I cited that case for two reasons:
  1. It had the statutory definintion of the crime in question
  2. It provided an example of what disorderly conduct was not.


In those cases the elements of the crime were different than in the Gates case. There were additional factors such as public intoxication, resisting apprehension, fighting, etc. It wasn't just a subject yelling at the cops. Which is all that Gates did.
Click to expand...

Did Gates following the officers serve a 'legitimate purpose'?

The officer finished his work inside the residence and left the residence, informing Mr. Gates if he wished to continue 'talking' he could go outside, since the officer no longer had a legitimate reason for being in the residence. I say the officer no longer had a legitimate reason for being in the residence because he
A. Confirmed that Gates was the residence owner.
B. Was obviously not welcomed to be in the residence by Gates.

Gates came outside, was acting disruptive and loudly cursing and swearing, which caused others to stop what they were doing and look on, as if alerted to the situation and at the very least it caused enough of a nuisance to interrupt the normal activities of those who were out in public in the area. He was informed of this and asked to quiet down. His refusal to do so shows and intent to make a scene, for the purpose of gaining public attention. He was told to calm down and continued to refuse and thus he was arrested after given ample opportunity to comply and act civil. I would agree with Harshaw in that nowhere is being upset a defense to this law.

And as I read the case law you provided and the Mass statute reguarding this offense and nowhere does it state a requirement for a specific complaint filed by a citizen of the disorderly conduct.

EDIT to add: I would not agree that the situation that occurred before the elements of this crime were met would provide for Gates to be in any mental state that would excuse him from his actions, or create any sort of defense.

However, that would be a situation for a court to review, and thus the probable cause for the arrest would still remain the same.

Probable cause for an arrest doesn't always mean you will receive a conviction. That is up for the courts to decide.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Horse****. Don't talk about things you obviously know nothing about.
Click to expand...
Umm.. Unless a citizen goes to a magistrate and obtains an arrest warrant for disorderly conduct, yes the officer does indeed have to witness the violation him/her self.
 
Caine said:
Umm.. Unless a citizen goes to a magistrate and obtains an arrest warrant for disorderly conduct, yes the officer does indeed have to witness the violation him/her self.
Click to expand...

May be different circumstances depending on municipality. In my town, we used to arrest folks all the time at the local nightclubs for disorderly conduct, and all they had to do was touch a bouncer. The bouncer then had to provide a written statement, but no police ever had to witness the incident.
 
Allusionation said:
May be different circumstances depending on municipality. In my town, we used to arrest folks all the time at the local nightclubs for disorderly conduct, and all they had to do was touch a bouncer. The bouncer then had to provide a written statement, but no police ever had to witness the incident.
Click to expand...

Procedures like this change from state to state.

But to call straight out horse**** like Lerxst did is incorrect.
 
Lerxst said:
Please provide sources, definitions, interpretations, etc. I'll have this argument with you.
Click to expand...

Google "Duty to Act Reasonably."


No it's not. The police did not observe a criminal act, and that is the problem. Police observed a man who was upset and yelling at them. That's it. There was no crime being committed for them to observe, thus no PC.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion; the police had a differing view. The burden of probable cause is "more likely than not," not "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop thinks he's observing a crime, then that's probable cause as long as he can articulate it.
 
Caine said:
Did Gates following the officers serve a 'legitimate purpose'?
Click to expand...
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."

The officer finished his work inside the residence and left the residence, informing Mr. Gates if he wished to continue 'talking' he could go outside,
Click to expand...
He invited him to follow. Okay.
since the officer no longer had a legitimate reason for being in the residence. I say the officer no longer had a legitimate reason for being in the residence because he
A. Confirmed that Gates was the residence owner.
B. Was obviously not welcomed to be in the residence by Gates.
Click to expand...
Why then did he invite Gates to follow him?

Gates came outside, was acting disruptive and loudly cursing and swearing, which caused others to stop what they were doing and look on, as if alerted to the situation and at the very least it caused enough of a nuisance to interrupt the normal activities of those who were out in public in the area.
Click to expand...
Wrong, they were already assembled outside his residence. The report even says this. 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. They were gawking before Gates followed the cop outside because all the police cars were in the neighborhood. This is not an uncommon phenomenon.

He was informed of this and asked to quiet down.
Click to expand...
So? Show me the law that says you can't yell on your own property.

His refusal to do so shows and intent to make a scene,
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It shows his intent to yell at the officer.

for the purpose of gaining public attention.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation and would never hold up in court. You're not a mind reader.

He was told to calm down and continued to refuse and thus he was arrested after given ample opportunity to comply and act civil.
Click to expand...
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 would agree with Harshaw in that nowhere is being upset a defense to this law.
Click to expand...
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.
And as I read the case law you provided and the Mass statute reguarding this offense and nowhere does it state a requirement for a specific complaint filed by a citizen of the disorderly conduct.
Click to expand...
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.

This thing was dumped because they knew it would never stand up...ever.
 
Harshaw said:
Google "Duty to Act Reasonably."




That's your opinion; the police had a differing view. The burden of probable cause is "more likely than not," not "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop thinks he's observing a crime, then that's probable cause as long as he can articulate it.
Click to expand...

Based upon the report filed, I conceed that he has articulated such, in my opinion.
 
Harshaw said:
Google "Duty to Act Reasonably."
Click to expand...
No, it's your case. You make it.

That's your opinion; the police had a differing view.
Click to expand...
And they were wrong.

The burden of probable cause is "more likely than not," not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that.

If the cop thinks he's observing a crime, then that's probable cause as long as he can articulate it.
Click to expand...
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.

This was a bad arrest.
 
Caine said:
Umm.. Unless a citizen goes to a magistrate and obtains an arrest warrant for disorderly conduct, yes the officer does indeed have to witness the violation him/her self.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Allusionation said:
May be different circumstances depending on municipality. In my town, we used to arrest folks all the time at the local nightclubs for disorderly conduct, and all they had to do was touch a bouncer. The bouncer then had to provide a written statement, but no police ever had to witness the incident.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom