Housing While Black (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

I wonder if Harvard will require Gates to submit to sensitivity training over this. After all, his job as a faculty member requires that he be able to interact with a diverse student body without injecting his own prejudices into those interactions. It would be a real shame if the university didn't nip this potential problem in the bud.

This is an excellent idea. I hope so.

 

[Novice2]

Hope and Change

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ey_pleaded.html

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details.

"He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said. "He wasn't there. None of us have the facts. He didn't have the facts. We don't have the facts. We don't know what professor Gates said, what Sergeant Crowley said. I'm absolutely pleased with [Obama's call]. I think it was a good thing for the president to do. He's the commander in chief, he's in charge. Whether or not he should be involved in local politics, he runs the country. We all want to see this behind us.''

This is the President of the Cambridge Patrol Officer's Association being quoted. Is he incorrect?

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Hey, Gates was obviouly acting dooshy. I'm not arguing that. I have yet to see how any valid argument, however, that the cop's decision to place him under arrest wasn't stupid, even if he was following protocol. Once he verfified that Gates lived at the residence, the smart thing for him to do would of been to be the bigger man and just walk away. Who cares if Gates was yelling at him? It's not like he was threatening him.

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

Because the police could of just walked away. They didn't have to arrest the guy. If a cop clocks you going 1 mph over the speed limit, he can pull you over and write you a ticket. He would be following proper protocol. And he would be "acting stupidly" by doing so.Think about it. They come to Gates' house to investigate a burglarly call. Gates acts like a doosh. Eventually he gives them the id and continues to act like a doosh. It's clear there's no burglarly. The shark move for the police is to just walk away in this type of situation. No good is going to come from arresting the homeowner in this scenario on a disorderly conduct charge. (And if Gates arrest truly served the public's interests, the charges wouldn't have been dropped asap.) I think we can both agree, however, that you and I would of handled the situation completely differently than Gates did if we were in his shoes.

 

[Harry Manback]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

Pathetic.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

How much cooler of a head could this cop have had?

That's a pretty easy one. He could have refrained from arresting somebody for porch-yelling.

Lets play run the scenario.The Cops are called out on a B & E. The first one arrives. Back up is on the way but an undetermined distance. The first officer sees the door damaged consistent with a break in and sees a person inside consistent with a sketchy suspect discription. The officer does not see a second suspect as described by dispatch. The officer orders the first suspect out of the house to the porch where the officer has good sight lines and is relatively safe. The suspect starts running his mouth accusing the officer of being racist and demanding information from the officer. The officer approaches the suspect but with all the noise has not heard the suspects partner just to the inside of the door chambering a round and gets blown away.Or similar facts, the officer retreats to the lawn giving the blowhard his respect. The blowhard suspect walks back in the house, tells his partner to finish up sodimizing the housewife, they both grab their guns, shoot the housewife, and then try to charge the officer wounding him shooting at his arriving backup, missing, and having their bullet struck and kill a 5 year old girl across the street.We could run lots of scenarios, the point is unknown circumstances are the norm, it is the officer's job to find them out, officers in exigent, or apparently exigent circumstances, have authority to give lawful orders demanding cooperation and those orders can even be issued to persons inside homes. Failing to obey is a crime most everywhere. Absent that officers are essentially powerless. Gates broke the law. he did not endanger the officer in fact, but the officer did not know this. Gates was subject to arrest unless Mass. has taken way from the police their ability to inquire into apparent felonies actively occuring in their presence. His crime was a misdemeanor, the consequences were minimal, but the law does not demand that officers defer to citizens just because they express racial outrage. Should this Cop have cited Gates, that's a judgement call. I would prefer he did not, or that he correctly cited him, but Gates broke the law as I understand it. Could the officer have chosen to cite and release, sure, and if he felt a need to cite that would have been preferable in my opinion.To reduce this matter to hurt feelings over "Porch-yelling", however, is something I find contemptable. It also does a disservice as you are well respected around here and you give ammunition and support to a position which is incorrect and dangerous.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Hey, Gates was obviouly acting dooshy. I'm not arguing that. I have yet to see how any valid argument, however, that the cop's decision to place him under arrest wasn't stupid, even if he was following protocol.

Once he verfified that Gates lived at the residence, the smart thing for him to do would of been to be the bigger man and just walk away. Who cares if Gates was yelling at him? It's not like he was threatening him.

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

Because the police could of just walked away. They didn't have to arrest the guy. If a cop clocks you going 1 mph over the speed limit, he can pull you over and write you a ticket. He would be following proper protocol. And he would be "acting stupidly" by doing so.Think about it. They come to Gates' house to investigate a burglarly call. Gates acts like a doosh. Eventually he gives them the id and continues to act like a doosh. It's clear there's no burglarly. The shark move for the police is to just walk away in this type of situation. No good is going to come from arresting the homeowner in this scenario on a disorderly conduct charge.

(And if Gates arrest truly served the public's interests, the charges wouldn't have been dropped asap.)

I think we can both agree, however, that you and I would of handled the situation completely differently than Gates did if we were in his shoes.

Unless the D.A. is an elected position and his decision are subject ot political as well as legal considerations. Your reliance on this argument makes you feel dsafe and right, but it is, in my experience, wrong. I don't really believe you to be this niave so I assume you are taking the position because you are a blind apologist.

 

[Harry Manback]

How much cooler of a head could this cop have had?

That's a pretty easy one. He could have refrained from arresting somebody for porch-yelling.

Lets play run the scenario.The Cops are called out on a B & E. The first one arrives. Back up is on the way but an undetermined distance. The first officer sees the door damaged consistent with a break in and sees a person inside consistent with a sketchy suspect discription. The officer does not see a second suspect as described by dispatch. The officer orders the first suspect out of the house to the porch where the officer has good sight lines and is relatively safe. The suspect starts running his mouth accusing the officer of being racist and demanding information from the officer. The officer approaches the suspect but with all the noise has not heard the suspects partner just to the inside of the door chambering a round and gets blown away.Or similar facts, the officer retreats to the lawn giving the blowhard his respect. The blowhard suspect walks back in the house, tells his partner to finish up sodimizing the housewife, they both grab their guns, shoot the housewife, and then try to charge the officer wounding him shooting at his arriving backup, missing, and having their bullet struck and kill a 5 year old girl across the street.We could run lots of scenarios, the point is unknown circumstances are the norm, it is the officer's job to find them out, officers in exigent, or apparently exigent circumstances, have authority to give lawful orders demanding cooperation and those orders can even be issued to persons inside homes. Failing to obey is a crime most everywhere. Absent that officers are essentially powerless. Gates broke the law. he did not endanger the officer in fact, but the officer did not know this. Gates was subject to arrest unless Mass. has taken way from the police their ability to inquire into apparent felonies actively occuring in their presence. His crime was a misdemeanor, the consequences were minimal, but the law does not demand that officers defer to citizens just because they express racial outrage. Should this Cop have cited Gates, that's a judgement call. I would prefer he did not, or that he correctly cited him, but Gates broke the law as I understand it. Could the officer have chosen to cite and release, sure, and if he felt a need to cite that would have been preferable in my opinion.To reduce this matter to hurt feelings over "Porch-yelling", however, is something I find contemptable. It also does a disservice as you are well respected around here and you give ammunition and support to a position which is incorrect and dangerous.

I commend your effords, but Maurile is so obviously biased, so totally convinced he is correct it's hard to watch.Not only that, every post he has made in this thread has been dripping with smug.He will never understand he is wrong. He is quite clearly biased on this issue.I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

 

[Sweet J]

Hey, Gates was obviouly acting dooshy. I'm not arguing that. I have yet to see how any valid argument, however, that the cop's decision to place him under arrest wasn't stupid, even if he was following protocol.

Once he verfified that Gates lived at the residence, the smart thing for him to do would of been to be the bigger man and just walk away. Who cares if Gates was yelling at him? It's not like he was threatening him.

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

Because the police could of just walked away. They didn't have to arrest the guy. If a cop clocks you going 1 mph over the speed limit, he can pull you over and write you a ticket. He would be following proper protocol. And he would be "acting stupidly" by doing so.Think about it. They come to Gates' house to investigate a burglarly call. Gates acts like a doosh. Eventually he gives them the id and continues to act like a doosh. It's clear there's no burglarly. The shark move for the police is to just walk away in this type of situation. No good is going to come from arresting the homeowner in this scenario on a disorderly conduct charge.

(And if Gates arrest truly served the public's interests, the charges wouldn't have been dropped asap.)

I think we can both agree, however, that you and I would of handled the situation completely differently than Gates did if we were in his shoes.

The more I think about this, the more I don't like it. The cops told him "calm down or I am arresting you." Any one of us, except maybe MOP, would have calmed the hell down. But Gates didn't. Why? Because he is an elitist from the ruling class who knows he can get away with acting crappy to an officer and get away with it, which he has clearly done. It sucks. It sucks that there are a set of rules for regular shmucks, and a set of rules for the ruling class. Oh well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How much cooler of a head could this cop have had?

That's a pretty easy one. He could have refrained from arresting somebody for porch-yelling.

Lets play run the scenario.The Cops are called out on a B & E. The first one arrives. Back up is on the way but an undetermined distance. The first officer sees the door damaged consistent with a break in and sees a person inside consistent with a sketchy suspect discription. The officer does not see a second suspect as described by dispatch. The officer orders the first suspect out of the house to the porch where the officer has good sight lines and is relatively safe. The suspect starts running his mouth accusing the officer of being racist and demanding information from the officer. The officer approaches the suspect but with all the noise has not heard the suspects partner just to the inside of the door chambering a round and gets blown away.

Or similar facts, the officer retreats to the lawn giving the blowhard his respect. The blowhard suspect walks back in the house, tells his partner to finish up sodimizing the housewife, they both grab their guns, shoot the housewife, and then try to charge the officer wounding him shooting at his arriving backup, missing, and having their bullet struck and kill a 5 year old girl across the street.

We could run lots of scenarios

That all has to do with stuff before the investigation was completed. Gates was not arrested for anything that happened before the investigation was completed.

[Officers] have authority to give lawful orders demanding cooperation and those orders can even be issued to persons inside homes. Failing to obey is a crime most everywhere. Absent that officers are essentially powerless. Gates broke the law.

How did he break the law?What lawful order did he disobey? (He initially refused to come outside, but nowhere in any report that I've seen was that request communicated as an order. When a cop tells you to come outside, you don't automatically have to do it. Based on my recollection of the police report, the request to come outside was given before the police said they were investigating a crime.)

And if he did disobey a lawful order, which I really don't think he did, how is that disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ey_pleaded.html

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details.

"He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said. "He wasn't there. None of us have the facts. He didn't have the facts. We don't have the facts. We don't know what professor Gates said, what Sergeant Crowley said. I'm absolutely pleased with [Obama's call]. I think it was a good thing for the president to do. He's the commander in chief, he's in charge. Whether or not he should be involved in local politics, he runs the country. We all want to see this behind us.''

This is the President of the Cambridge Patrol Officer's Association being quoted. Is he incorrect?

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

Is Killion incorrect?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

 

[Harry Manback]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

 

[urbanhack]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

I hope you are going out for some fun tonight. You seem angry.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

not sure why it bothers you that he thinks the actual arrest was a mistake. they did drop the charges almost immediately.

 

[HellToupee]

What lawful order did he disobey? (He initially refused to come outside, but nowhere in any report that I've seen was that request communicated as an order. When a cop tells you to come outside, you don't automatically have to do it. Based on my recollection of the police report, the request to come outside was given before the police said they were investigating a crime.)

And if he did disobey a lawful order, which I really don't think he did, how is that disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law?

Arrested in Massachusetts for Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?A disorderly person is defined as one who:

with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or

recklessly creates a risk thereof

engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or

creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

I am in different criminal courts across the state everyday, defending my clients rights and freedom. If you need someone on your side against the legal system, call me and I'll offer my experience and advice to you, with no obligation.

If you are charged with disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace or another criminal offense, call me now at my office in Dedham, MA at (781)326-2700, or my Brockton office to schedule your free first appointment now.

MGL CHAPTER 272. Mass General Laws, excerpt.

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

 

[Harry Manback]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

not sure why it bothers you that he thinks the actual arrest was a mistake. they did drop the charges almost immediately.

Ok. If he really believes it was a mistake, and unlawful, and you really believe this too.Why don't you sit on your porch and scream, and when the police tell you to quiet down, insult his mother. See what happens.Odds are you'll be fine, right? I mean, you're white.

 

[Harry Manback]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

I hope you are going out for some fun tonight. You seem angry.

I hope I am too GB. Thanks for the concern.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What lawful order did he disobey? (He initially refused to come outside, but nowhere in any report that I've seen was that request communicated as an order. When a cop tells you to come outside, you don't automatically have to do it. Based on my recollection of the police report, the request to come outside was given before the police said they were investigating a crime.)

And if he did disobey a lawful order, which I really don't think he did, how is that disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law?

Arrested in Massachusetts for Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?A disorderly person is defined as one who: . . .

I've read the statute. I've read a bunch of cases construing it. I've read commentary on it from MA lawyers. I don't think it's a close case. Yelling at a police officer from your porch (especially about political stuff) is not disorderly conduct.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok. If he really believes it was a mistake, and unlawful, and you really believe this too.Why don't you sit on your porch and scream, and when the police tell you to quiet down, insult his mother. See what happens.Odds are you'll be fine, right? I mean, you're white.

You're being ridiculous. Whether somebody is likely to use force against you is a completely separate question from whether it is legal for him to do so.

 

[Harry Manback]

Ok. If he really believes it was a mistake, and unlawful, and you really believe this too.Why don't you sit on your porch and scream, and when the police tell you to quiet down, insult his mother. See what happens.Odds are you'll be fine, right? I mean, you're white.

You're being ridiculous. Whether somebody is likely to use force against you is a completely separate question from whether it is legal for him to do so.

I'm not saying you'll have force used, I'm saying you'll get arrested, and should expect to.I've seen it multiple times. I live in MA.You are being ridiculous, the arrest may have been stupid, but it was certainly legal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not saying you'll have force used, I'm saying you'll get arrested

LOL.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

He hasn't impressed me in this thread.Sorry for my opinion.

not sure why it bothers you that he thinks the actual arrest was a mistake. they did drop the charges almost immediately.

Ok. If he really believes it was a mistake, and unlawful, and you really believe this too.Why don't you sit on your porch and scream, and when the police tell you to quiet down, insult his mother. See what happens.Odds are you'll be fine, right? I mean, you're white.

I don't really understand what this has to do with any of the points that MT has raised or why it bothers you so much.and just b/c cops do something doesn't make it always the correct or legal thing to do. you realize that people can and do disagree over the interpretation of laws, don't you?

 

[Harry Manback]

Ok. If he really believes it was a mistake, and unlawful, and you really believe this too.Why don't you sit on your porch and scream, and when the police tell you to quiet down, insult his mother. See what happens.Odds are you'll be fine, right? I mean, you're white.

I don't really understand what this has to do with any of the points that MT has raised or why it bothers you so much.and just b/c cops do something doesn't make it always the correct or legal thing to do. you realize that people can and do disagree over the interpretation of laws, don't you?

It seems like he's defending a guy who is clearly wrong, and attempting to make this about the police making a mistake, and taking away from what a massive doosh Gates is. He seems to have some sort of personal stake in this I am not aware of. Most people are disagreeing with him here.I personally think Gates is a blowhard attention whore.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

It seems like he's defending a guy who is clearly wrong, and attempting to make this about the police making a mistake, and taking away from what a massive doosh Gates is. He seems to have some sort of personal stake in this I am not aware of. Most people are disagreeing with him here.I personally think Gates is a blowhard attention whore.

did you miss the part where he said Gates might have deserved a beating if the cop was actually off duty when this happened?all MT appears to be arguing here is that Gates was probably being a dooshwad but didn't actually break any MA law in the processs. as a result, the decision to actually arrest him was a mistake on the cop's part. not exactly a crazy position to take, but it bothers you very much for some reason.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

How much cooler of a head could this cop have had?

That's a pretty easy one. He could have refrained from arresting somebody for porch-yelling.

Lets play run the scenario.The Cops are called out on a B & E. The first one arrives. Back up is on the way but an undetermined distance. The first officer sees the door damaged consistent with a break in and sees a person inside consistent with a sketchy suspect discription. The officer does not see a second suspect as described by dispatch. The officer orders the first suspect out of the house to the porch where the officer has good sight lines and is relatively safe. The suspect starts running his mouth accusing the officer of being racist and demanding information from the officer. The officer approaches the suspect but with all the noise has not heard the suspects partner just to the inside of the door chambering a round and gets blown away.

Or similar facts, the officer retreats to the lawn giving the blowhard his respect. The blowhard suspect walks back in the house, tells his partner to finish up sodimizing the housewife, they both grab their guns, shoot the housewife, and then try to charge the officer wounding him shooting at his arriving backup, missing, and having their bullet struck and kill a 5 year old girl across the street.

We could run lots of scenarios, the point is unknown circumstances are the norm, it is the officer's job to find them out, officers in exigent, or apparently exigent circumstances, have authority to give lawful orders demanding cooperation and those orders can even be issued to persons inside homes. Failing to obey is a crime most everywhere. Absent that officers are essentially powerless. Gates broke the law. he did not endanger the officer in fact, but the officer did not know this. Gates was subject to arrest unless Mass. has taken way from the police their ability to inquire into apparent felonies actively occuring in their presence. His crime was a misdemeanor, the consequences were minimal, but the law does not demand that officers defer to citizens just because they express racial outrage. Should this Cop have cited Gates, that's a judgement call. I would prefer he did not, or that he correctly cited him, but Gates broke the law as I understand it. Could the officer have chosen to cite and release, sure, and if he felt a need to cite that would have been preferable in my opinion.

To reduce this matter to hurt feelings over "Porch-yelling", however, is something I find contemptable. It also does a disservice as you are well respected around here and you give ammunition and support to a position which is incorrect and dangerous.

I commend your effords, but Maurile is so obviously biased, so totally convinced he is correct it's hard to watch.Not only that, every post he has made in this thread has been dripping with smug.

He will never understand he is wrong. He is quite clearly biased on this issue.

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

I cannot as he is clearly a towering intellect and a very thoughful person.

 

[SofaKings]

8 break-ins in the neighborhood in the last month including at this address

Sounds like Harvard professors get ####ty accomodations.

The white professors are in the high rent district.

 

[Christo]

What lawful order did he disobey? (He initially refused to come outside, but nowhere in any report that I've seen was that request communicated as an order. When a cop tells you to come outside, you don't automatically have to do it. Based on my recollection of the police report, the request to come outside was given before the police said they were investigating a crime.)

And if he did disobey a lawful order, which I really don't think he did, how is that disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law?

Arrested in Massachusetts for Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?A disorderly person is defined as one who:

with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or

recklessly creates a risk thereof

engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or

creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

I am in different criminal courts across the state everyday, defending my clients rights and freedom. If you need someone on your side against the legal system, call me and I'll offer my experience and advice to you, with no obligation.

If you are charged with disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace or another criminal offense, call me now at my office in Dedham, MA at (781)326-2700, or my Brockton office to schedule your free first appointment now.

MGL CHAPTER 272. Mass General Laws, excerpt.

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I already posted this. MT never responded.

 

[Christo]

The funniest part is, you could be arrested under the statute if you played your stereo too loud or sat in your driveway revving your engine and failed to stop when ordered to do so by a cop.

 

[kutta]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

MT, a lot of people agree with what you are saying. The problem is that this thing blew up because of a claim of racism. Even if you grant that the cops were in the wrong in arresting him, who cares? So the cops erred on another close judgment call. If the claim of racism never surfaced, this would not even be in the news. So your position of not addressing whether or not racism was involved is a bit empty. I think everyone could agree, or at least come close to agreeing that it was close judgment call and the cops probably should not have arrested him. But not everyone agrees or is close to agreeing whether or not racism is involved in the decision. So until you address the issue of racism, whether from the cop, Gates, or Obama, your opinion is simple and not very interesting.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

How much cooler of a head could this cop have had?

That's a pretty easy one. He could have refrained from arresting somebody for porch-yelling.

Lets play run the scenario.The Cops are called out on a B & E. The first one arrives. Back up is on the way but an undetermined distance. The first officer sees the door damaged consistent with a break in and sees a person inside consistent with a sketchy suspect discription. The officer does not see a second suspect as described by dispatch. The officer orders the first suspect out of the house to the porch where the officer has good sight lines and is relatively safe. The suspect starts running his mouth accusing the officer of being racist and demanding information from the officer. The officer approaches the suspect but with all the noise has not heard the suspects partner just to the inside of the door chambering a round and gets blown away.

Or similar facts, the officer retreats to the lawn giving the blowhard his respect. The blowhard suspect walks back in the house, tells his partner to finish up sodimizing the housewife, they both grab their guns, shoot the housewife, and then try to charge the officer wounding him shooting at his arriving backup, missing, and having their bullet struck and kill a 5 year old girl across the street.

We could run lots of scenarios

That all has to do with stuff before the investigation was completed. Gates was not arrested for anything that happened before the investigation was completed.

[Officers] have authority to give lawful orders demanding cooperation and those orders can even be issued to persons inside homes. Failing to obey is a crime most everywhere. Absent that officers are essentially powerless. Gates broke the law.

How did he break the law?What lawful order did he disobey? (He initially refused to come outside, but nowhere in any report that I've seen was that request communicated as an order. When a cop tells you to come outside, you don't automatically have to do it. Based on my recollection of the police report, the request to come outside was given before the police said they were investigating a crime.)

And if he did disobey a lawful order, which I really don't think he did, how is that disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law?

I believe I have stated multiple times that the officer mischarged the matter as I understand mass. law. That is a different thing, though, than maintaining that the behavior was not criminal. As for whether Prof Gates was given a lawful order I do not know, I was not there. I do not trust press reports or preliminary police reports to set the matter out clearly. I do hope and believe that a Sgt. would have the procedure down, but it is possible in this specific case that he did not. I have already stated that the officer needs to state matters and his authority correctly and clearly, perhaps I should add unambiguously since some officers have made cases difficult by simply saying "please", arguably changing orders inst requests. (I concede one can disregard a plice request) Part of the difficulty in internet discussions is that we go back and forth between the specific to sweeping genealizations. All individual cases are treated as object lessons and cautionary tales from which global conclusions must be discused and solved. I choose not to take issue with you on the specifics of the case. What I object to here is that in your flippancy you are encouraging global misunderstandings and they are dangerous.

I appreciate that you have conceded that Officers can issue lawful orders mandating cooperation. Would you, for the benefit of those trying to learn here concede that in an exigent circumstance or an apparently ongoing felony in an officer's presence that the officer could lawfully order a person out of their home?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It seems like he's defending a guy who is clearly wrong,

Based on everything you know about what happened that day, would you defend Gates from an accusation of rape -- even though he was clearly wrong? How about kidnapping? Murder?Just because somebody is a doosh doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. What he did doesn't amount to kidnapping. Neither does it amount to disorderly conduct under MA law, as far as I can tell. (And I've put some effort into it.)

and attempting to make this about the police making a mistake, and taking away from what a massive doosh Gates is.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Gates was a massive doosh. That's not an issue in dispute, so it doesn't seem very interesting. But if you want to have a long discussion about it, knock yourself out.

 

[Christo]

It seems like he's defending a guy who is clearly wrong,

Based on everything you know about what happened that day, would you defend Gates from an accusation of rape -- even though he was clearly wrong? How about kidnapping? Murder?Just because somebody is a doosh doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. What he did doesn't amount to kidnapping. Neither does it amount to disorderly conduct under MA law, as far as I can tell. (And I've put some effort into it.)

and attempting to make this about the police making a mistake, and taking away from what a massive doosh Gates is.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Gates was a massive doosh. That's not an issue in dispute, so it doesn't seem very interesting. But if you want to have a long discussion about it, knock yourself out.

Ridiculous

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I believe I have stated multiple times that the officer mischarged the matter as I understand mass. law.

Well that's really all I'm saying. He's innocent of the charges that were brought.

That is a different thing, though, than maintaining that the behavior was not criminal.

I don't know whether he violated some other statute. I'm not familiar with MA crim law (or any other crim law, really). Just because of this case, I'm somewhat familiar with MA's disorderly conduct statute (as construed by the courts to mirror a couple subsections of the Model Penal Code), and I don't think he violated it. Apart from that, I don't know. But assuming he didn't disobey a lawful order (and it doesn't sound like he did), I don't think anything he did should be illegal.

I appreciate that you have conceded that Officers can issue lawful orders mandating cooperation. Would you, for the benefit of those trying to learn here concede that in an exigent circumstance or an apparently ongoing felony in an officer's presence that the officer could lawfully order a person out of their home?

Of course.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ey_pleaded.html

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details.

"He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said. "He wasn't there. None of us have the facts. He didn't have the facts. We don't have the facts. We don't know what professor Gates said, what Sergeant Crowley said. I'm absolutely pleased with [Obama's call]. I think it was a good thing for the president to do. He's the commander in chief, he's in charge. Whether or not he should be involved in local politics, he runs the country. We all want to see this behind us.''

This is the President of the Cambridge Patrol Officer's Association being quoted. Is he incorrect?

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

Is Killion incorrect?

If anyone else would like to jump in here, feel free.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

Is Killion incorrect?

If anyone else would like to jump in here, feel free.

I'm pretty sure StrikeS2k is just arguing semantics with you. He feels that Obama didn't literally say "I'm sorry" so he doesn't consider it an apology.to most reasonable people, I'd assume that "acknowledging you made a mistake" is considered an apology.

 

[scoobygang]

MT, a lot of people agree with what you are saying. The problem is that this thing blew up because of a claim of racism. Even if you grant that the cops were in the wrong in arresting him, who cares? So the cops erred on another close judgment call. If the claim of racism never surfaced, this would not even be in the news. So your position of not addressing whether or not racism was involved is a bit empty. I think everyone could agree, or at least come close to agreeing that it was close judgment call and the cops probably should not have arrested him. But not everyone agrees or is close to agreeing whether or not racism is involved in the decision. So until you address the issue of racism, whether from the cop, Gates, or Obama, your opinion is simple and not very interesting.

I don't think it was a close judgment call, and I have no idea what role race had in the officer's actions. You guys raking Maurile over the coals for not classifying this case as about race baiting are just as annoying as the ones crying racism from step one.It was a case where Gates acted poorly, and the officer, whether because he was frustrated or having a ####ty day or whatever, overstepped his authority. I don't know what was in the officer's head any more than Gates does. Because Gates came up through the Civil Rights Era, it's easy to imagine that he overreacted. To the extent that Gates wants to make this a "teaching moment" about race in America, I agree that he deserves some scorn. But we can admit that without making the cop out to be some kind of victim. He screwed up. It happens.

 

[Neofight]

I'm curious if your answer would be the same had this not been a Harvard professor and had this not been in a quiet neighborhood.

Let's instead move it to a high rise in Cabrini Green, Chicago. Say two white cops had been called to investigate a report of an intruder on the sixth floor of the high rise. They go to the door and knock. They hear someone inside and order the person out. Everything happens exactly the same. Including alleging racial bias on the part of the cops in a loud voice. But, instead of the cops being in the front yard with a few passers-by on the street overhearing the rant, we have two cops in a hallway with people coming out of their apartments. People who presumably share the same beliefs about cops as Mr. Gates.

Cops have been killed in those high rises. Would the cops have been wrong to arrest the man under those circumstances?

Chirst, er Cristo, you wouldn't use this argument in a court of law would you? "But imagine for a moment if you will, members of the jury, that Mr. Gates wasn't a well respected member of the community but a thriceconvictedviolentoffendergangbangingthug!"

How far are you willing to take these hypotheticals? To say nothing of your ridiculous assumptions. What type of law do you practice?

Leave the big boy discussions to the big boys.

Spare me the fancy legalese; I am no lawyer. And due to that fact I am going to have to ask for some clarification: are you resting your case before even beginning to mount one, or are you just waiving your membership in the Big Boy ClubTM in this poor plebs face? Another point of clarification: how big a boy does one have to be for membership (I'd love to join, but I'm barely 170... do you think Mr. Gates could ever qualify)? Please, show us what MA disorderly conduct law was violated, because thus far you have failed to do so. And what is your explanation for the fact that the charges were dropped almost immediately? Was there some conspiracy behind this? I know your penchant is for long explanations with lots of legal jargon, so please, for the sake of this rube, keep it short and sweet. I'm begging you; take it easy on me, kind sir.

 

[Harry Manback]

It seems like he's defending a guy who is clearly wrong,

Based on everything you know about what happened that day, would you defend Gates from an accusation of rape -- even though he was clearly wrong? How about kidnapping? Murder?Just because somebody is a doosh doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. What he did doesn't amount to kidnapping. Neither does it amount to disorderly conduct under MA law, as far as I can tell. (And I've put some effort into it.)

and attempting to make this about the police making a mistake, and taking away from what a massive doosh Gates is.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Gates was a massive doosh. That's not an issue in dispute, so it doesn't seem very interesting. But if you want to have a long discussion about it, knock yourself out.

I still believe if he were shouting and yelling, impeding the officer from communicating with back up, and refused a direct order to quiet down more than 2 times, it is disorderly or disturbing the peace. Arrestable. There is supposedly video/audio evidence of this.Maybe you believe all of this and still don't think it qualifies.

If that's the case, I think you are biased in some way, maybe you dislike cops, can sympathize with Gates from personal experience. I don't know, but your stance bothers me, as most everyone agrees that he shouldn't have been arrested, but not legally speaking.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ey_pleaded.html

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details.

"He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said. "He wasn't there. None of us have the facts. He didn't have the facts. We don't have the facts. We don't know what professor Gates said, what Sergeant Crowley said. I'm absolutely pleased with [Obama's call]. I think it was a good thing for the president to do. He's the commander in chief, he's in charge. Whether or not he should be involved in local politics, he runs the country. We all want to see this behind us.''

This is the President of the Cambridge Patrol Officer's Association being quoted. Is he incorrect?

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

Is Killion incorrect?

About what. Nothing he said contradicts the fact the Obama has not apologized for his comments, which is the assertion you made that I take issue with, and that you have yet to prove happened. why are we wasting a bunch of posts in this thread when you have yet to show one shred of evidence that the President apologized for his comments?

 

[Jim11]

Quite simply, Gates is a racist and a case can be made that Obama himself is at least biased, if not racist.

Obama attended a church with a racist minister for years and never backed off supporting him until he had to, to get elected President.

Michelle said that she was never proud of her country before.

Obama blurted out what were probably his true feelings the other night at the press conference. Once again, he's forced to back off, for political reasons.

Quite a track record for a "uniter".

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Is Killion incorrect?

About what. Nothing he said contradicts the fact the Obama has not apologized for his comments, which is the assertion you made that I take issue with, and that you have yet to prove happened. why are we wasting a bunch of posts in this thread when you have yet to show one shred of evidence that the President apologized for his comments?

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details. "He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology

Apology

2: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret

 

[CrossEyed]

Haven't read the thread, but credit where credit is due. I thought Obama was foolish for wading into this issue without having all the facts. But I thought he handled things well today. He came out quickly and put water on a fire that was growing quickly. Kudos.

 

[StrikeS2k]

He has not apologized for the comments. He acknowledged that they added to the controversy and said he could have "calibrated" them differently. You're the one who said he apologized for the comments themselves. Prove it.

Is Killion incorrect?

If anyone else would like to jump in here, feel free.

I'm pretty sure StrikeS2k is just arguing semantics with you. He feels that Obama didn't literally say "I'm sorry" so he doesn't consider it an apology.to most reasonable people, I'd assume that "acknowledging you made a mistake" is considered an apology.

It goes well beyond semantics. At best Obama is saying "I'm sorry my comments added to the controversy". KRS's original statement was that Obama apologized for the comments themselves, which he hasn't. In fact, he's said he STILL believes in the gist of those comments. There is a huge distinction between apologizing (really just acknowledging) the effect his comments had on the situation and apologizing for the comments themselves. If KRS think Obama apologized for the comments themselves, he is welcome to prove it. Until then he's just wasting space in this thread.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Is Killion incorrect?

About what. Nothing he said contradicts the fact the Obama has not apologized for his comments, which is the assertion you made that I take issue with, and that you have yet to prove happened. why are we wasting a bunch of posts in this thread when you have yet to show one shred of evidence that the President apologized for his comments?

Killion said the president has admitted he erred by discussing a case without knowing the details. "He acknowledges he made a mistake,'' Killion said.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology

Apology

2: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret

Anything Killion says is hearsay at best. I'm not going to say he was "wrong" but the only comments I've heard are from the President, and his comments are that he regrets the effect of his comments and could have worded them differently. He has NEVER said he regrets the comments themselves. Either the reporter is misreporting it or we need more information about the conversation between the officer and the President but, considering his comments on the matter thus far I doubt he has said he apologizes for making the comments at all.

 

[Neofight]

OBAMA SPEAKS

President Obama today stood by his comments that the Cambridge, Mass., police department acted "stupidly" in its arrest of Henry Louis Gates, telling ABC News that the Harvard University professor should not have been arrested.

Share

President says he doesn't regret his criticism of Cambridge police department.

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.

"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."

Watch "Nightline" Tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET for Terry Moran's full interview with President Obama

Sgt. James Crowley, who arrested Gates for disorderly conduct, and his union slammed the president today for his comments about the incident at Gates' house last week.

Obama "was dead wrong to malign this police officer specifically and the department in general," Alan McDonald, the lawyer for the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, told ABC News today.

Obama Speaks

Healthcare? Dont' arrest him because of healthcare? What does that even mean?

No, don't arrest him because there was no cause. None whatsoever. End of story. The rest is just commentary on the state of things in this country. The officers actions obviously did not help. Did Obama's comments help either? No, not likely. But then I think that anyone here in this forum (white or black, though the outcome would likely have been much different if you are white) who was arrested in their own home, with the officer obviously showing his intent by coaxing you out of the home so he could make the arrest, would be pretty pissed if this happened to them. Maybe you wouldn't call the cop stupid or you would not have mouthed of to the arresting officer; but based on the posts I've read in this thread and others I'm fairly certain those up in arms over this issue would have more than a few choice words to say. And most of you aren't diminutive types using a cane to get around, one would surmise. I imagine this ups the ante. But here I go empathizing, and I do realize this is a difficult thing for some of you.I appreciate and respect police. I have two in my family who I am close with. But these actions were unnecessary and yes, stupid. Sometimes we lose our heads during confrontation. If this happened to you, how would you have reacted in either person's shoes? If you say you would have acted the same was as Crowley, back your case up with facts and the law. Otherwise pack up the feigned outrage for another day, por favor.

Gates wasn't arrested in his home, he was outside. The officer was not "obviously showing his intent by coaxing you out of the home so he make the arrest". He wanted Gates outside because it was the safe and proper request when investigating a burlary in progress. After being berated by Gates inside the house, the officer told him to calm down and later the officer walked away. Gates followed the officer outside and continued to berate him. After 2 additional warnings the officer arrested Gates outside.

Exactly my point. However, Professor Gates identity (as the owner of the home) was established prior to the request to go outside. Your version of this story is one that I have not read anywhere else. It does make the arrest seem like a more reasonable conclusion; but it is flat out wrong based on what I've read and heard of the police report by officer Figueroa. As stated by others, berating does not constitute a punishable offense in MA. Saying the words "Yo Mama" is not against the law.Still curious how those up in arms over this would feel if the same thing happened to them in (and on the porch of) their house.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Anything Killion says is hearsay at best. I'm not going to say he was "wrong" but the only comments I've heard are from the President, and his comments are that he regrets the effect of his comments and could have worded them differently. He has NEVER said he regrets the comments themselves. Either the reporter is misreporting it or we need more information about the conversation between the officer and the President but, considering his comments on the matter thus far I doubt he has said he apologizes for making the comments at all.

I don't think anything short of an illegal wiretap on the President's phone will prove persuasive to you here. By all accounts, Crowley was very happy about the phone call and the contents. That's good enough for me.

 

[ffjunk]

Exactly my point. However, Professor Gates identity (as the owner of the home) was established prior to the request to go outside. Your version of this story is one that I have not read anywhere else. It does make the arrest seem like a more reasonable conclusion; but it is flat out wrong based on what I've read and heard of the police report by officer Figueroa. As stated by others, berating does not constitute a punishable offense in MA. Saying the words "Yo Mama" is not against the law.

Still curious how those up in arms over this would feel if the same thing happened to them in (and on the porch of) their house.

Link to police report.Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Gates had a chip on his shoulder and was given plenty of chances to calm down. He didn't. Shame on him for bringing race into this.

 

[Max Power]

Still curious how those up in arms over this would feel if the same thing happened to them in (and on the porch of) their house.

I would have known that I asked for it...