Housing While Black (2 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

Tapes of 911 call and all communication between Crowley and dispatch will be released today.

This could be bad news for all those clinging to racism for some weird reason.People complain that racism is bad blah blah blah, but they aren't willing to allow things to be better, they NEED racism to still exist, or what can they ##### about?This is such a clear case of what is NOT racial profiling, yet there are supposedly intelligent people tripping over themselves to justify why it is racism.Sad really.

Apparantly, black people simply should not be arrested ever by a white cop. Too much grey area.

 

[RCon]

One could make an argument that intentionally detaining a police officer by shouting at him and causing him to take extra time dealing with the situation causes a risk of public inconvenience, in that the police officer could have been off serving the public instead.

Of course, one could also then argue that the officer could have left anyway without bothering to listen or respond.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

From Legal Blog Watch:

Gates-gate: What's the Law Say?

As if the controversy surrounding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates wasn't sufficiently swirling through the media and the blogsophere, the president of the United States had to weigh in, saying during a press conference last night that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they put Gates in handcuffs even after he showed proof that he lived in the home where police had come to investigate a report of a burglary.

Of course, Gates was arrested not for suspicion of breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct after he and a police officer engaged in a confrontation at his home. The district attorney later agreed to drop the charges against Gates after the city of Cambridge, Mass., and its police department jointly recommended the DA not pursue the matter.

Clearly, dropping the charges was the right move politically. But was it the right move legally? David E. Frank, a former prosecutor who is now a reporter for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, says it was, given that the charge against Gates was unlikely to hold up under the Massachusetts disorderly conduct statute.

In a 1976 decision, Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the First Amendment prevents application of the disorderly conduct law to language and expressive conduct, even when it is offensive and abusive. The one exception would be language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Jury instructions used by the Massachusetts courts spell out three elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of disorderly conduct:

1. The defendant engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose.

2. The defendant's actions were reasonably likely to affect the public.

3. The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

There are at least two different versions of what happened at Gates' house -- his and that of the arresting officer. But even if one were to assume the accuracy of the police version -- that Gates called the officer a racist and warned him that he had no idea who he was dealing with -- there is no basis for prosecution, Frank concludes.
While the report refers to Gates' conduct as "loud and tumultuous," there does not appear to be anything there that would allow for a conclusion that they were "fighting words."

The SJC has also said that for a defendant in Gates' situation to be found guilty, his actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public in a place to which the public had access. Where much, if not all, of the alleged conduct occurred on Gates' property, it appears that legal requirement would prove fatal to the DA's case.

The controversy over Gates' arrest is unlikely to die down anytime soon. But one conclusion seems clear -- the legal ground for his arrest was shaky from the start.

The case got dropped because of who Gates is not due to interpretation of the law IMO. If this was some regular nobody and did not become a national issue do you think the charges would have been dropped? Plus a man with Gates' resources would have a much better chance of beating the charges than someone with a public defender and I would think that would factor in to the decision of whether to proceed or not.

Does this mean the charges were legit or that the DA would be willing to prosecute a bad case against someone he knew didn't have the resources to fight?

 

[Statorama]

On my way out for lunch, I gave a black vagrant $5. He was playing a ukulele and was taking requests. I asked for the theme to the Flintstones, and not only did he play it but sang the words as well.

He certainly deserved something for the effort, and I got a "God Bless You" out of it....so I've got that going for me.

I only mention this story because the dude was respectful of the people whether they tossed something into his bucket or not. If someone didn't leave some change, he didn't yell "I'LL PLAY A SONG FOR YO MAMA!"

Just wanted to show that not all black people are as hot headed and disrespectful as this professor.

And not all white people want to blow up federal buildings like Tim McVeigh. Take your weak fishing trips elsewhere.

Settle down. No need to get out of control and disrestpectful here.

 

[Gigantomachia]

So at what point do the few remaining posters clinging to a racial profiling theory admit they were wrong?

Let me see, Boston area cops known for their historic racial problems in the past arrest a tiny black dude for no reason other than he was not being nice and kissing their ###.I'll get back to you on that one.

next stop is Clueless Town, please make sure you get off the bus. This incident happened in Cambridge which is one of the most liberal and PC places on earth. To try to link it to historical racial issues in Boston is just plain ignorant. It is like saying Oakland and Berkeley are one in the same.

Oh yea I forgot, Cambridge and Berkeley work hard to keep out "bad influences."

 

[ICON211]

From Legal Blog Watch:

Gates-gate: What's the Law Say?

As if the controversy surrounding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates wasn't sufficiently swirling through the media and the blogsophere, the president of the United States had to weigh in, saying during a press conference last night that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they put Gates in handcuffs even after he showed proof that he lived in the home where police had come to investigate a report of a burglary.

Of course, Gates was arrested not for suspicion of breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct after he and a police officer engaged in a confrontation at his home. The district attorney later agreed to drop the charges against Gates after the city of Cambridge, Mass., and its police department jointly recommended the DA not pursue the matter.

Clearly, dropping the charges was the right move politically. But was it the right move legally? David E. Frank, a former prosecutor who is now a reporter for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, says it was, given that the charge against Gates was unlikely to hold up under the Massachusetts disorderly conduct statute.

In a 1976 decision, Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the First Amendment prevents application of the disorderly conduct law to language and expressive conduct, even when it is offensive and abusive. The one exception would be language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Jury instructions used by the Massachusetts courts spell out three elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of disorderly conduct:

1. The defendant engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose.

2. The defendant's actions were reasonably likely to affect the public.

3. The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

There are at least two different versions of what happened at Gates' house -- his and that of the arresting officer. But even if one were to assume the accuracy of the police version -- that Gates called the officer a racist and warned him that he had no idea who he was dealing with -- there is no basis for prosecution, Frank concludes.
While the report refers to Gates' conduct as "loud and tumultuous," there does not appear to be anything there that would allow for a conclusion that they were "fighting words."

The SJC has also said that for a defendant in Gates' situation to be found guilty, his actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public in a place to which the public had access. Where much, if not all, of the alleged conduct occurred on Gates' property, it appears that legal requirement would prove fatal to the DA's case.

The controversy over Gates' arrest is unlikely to die down anytime soon. But one conclusion seems clear -- the legal ground for his arrest was shaky from the start.

The case got dropped because of who Gates is not due to interpretation of the law IMO. If this was some regular nobody and did not become a national issue do you think the charges would have been dropped? Plus a man with Gates' resources would have a much better chance of beating the charges than someone with a public defender and I would think that would factor in to the decision of whether to proceed or not.

Does this mean the charges were legit or that the DA would be willing to prosecute a bad case against someone he knew didn't have the resources to fight?

Reading the statute I can easily see how the arrest was legit but a good lawyer could probably rip holes in it. The arrest is borderline and in a borderline case where there was going to be a very questionable chance of the charges sticking, especially a misdemeanor, I can see a DA dropping the charges. The one thing that bugs me about this is the police department asking for the charges to be dropped, but I guess if you are friends with the governor and the president that will get you out of some stuff.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Audio released

 

[Parrothead]

Audio released

The woman who made the 911 call said Sunday through a spokesman she never mentioned race during the call and was "personally devastated" by media accounts that suggested she placed the call because the men she saw on the porch of Gate's home were black, the Globe reports today.Well, so much for the racial profiling argument...

 

[jonessed]

Audio released

The woman who made the 911 call said Sunday through a spokesman she never mentioned race during the call and was "personally devastated" by media accounts that suggested she placed the call because the men she saw on the porch of Gate's home were black, the Globe reports today.Well, so much for the racial profiling argument...

Seems like it would be practical for here to mention race if she saw it, but maybe she couldn't tell. It's pretty sad that the media added that to trump this up. Their credibility doesn't need any more dings.

 

[RCon]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

And yes, before anyone asks, I don't think taxpayers should have to pick up the tab for championship sports teams to visit the White House either (assuming they don't pay their own way).

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Wish rodeojones was here to comment.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Not a whole lot to this 2nd recording...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

It bothers me because of its instrinsic stupidity, not because of its cost.

 

[ICON211]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.And yes, before anyone asks, I don't think taxpayers should have to pick up the tab for championship sports teams to visit the White House either (assuming they don't pay their own way).

I think they should go with a wrestling angle with this and have Gates go to the White House and open up the door to the room where this is to take place, only for him to find Officer Crowley's mother standing there with a pissed off look on her face. They could have Jim Ross there screaming "MY GOD ITS OFFICER CROWLEY'S MAMA!"

 

[Yankee23Fan]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

It bothers me because of its instrinsic stupidity, not because of its cost.

Wait - this is seriously going to happen?I'll give Obama credit. Thereisn't a PR moment that he hasn't figured out how to exploit or simply make to make sure his pretty face stays in the limelight. The talking ponts will be eating this up. "See, the President can sit down with regular people and admit that mistakes were made and have a beer with them. Isn't he great!" And Olbermann will add, "and he was able to do this without shooting anyone in the face. Bush sucks!"

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

It bothers me because of its instrinsic stupidity, not because of its cost.

Wait - this is seriously going to happen?I'll give Obama credit. Thereisn't a PR moment that he hasn't figured out how to exploit or simply make to make sure his pretty face stays in the limelight. The talking ponts will be eating this up. "See, the President can sit down with regular people and admit that mistakes were made and have a beer with them. Isn't he great!" And Olbermann will add, "and he was able to do this without shooting anyone in the face. Bush sucks!"

To shamelessly rip off Shining Path, this is going to be the Camp David accords, only with stupid people.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

It bothers me because of its instrinsic stupidity, not because of its cost.

Wait - this is seriously going to happen?I'll give Obama credit. Thereisn't a PR moment that he hasn't figured out how to exploit or simply make to make sure his pretty face stays in the limelight. The talking ponts will be eating this up. "See, the President can sit down with regular people and admit that mistakes were made and have a beer with them. Isn't he great!" And Olbermann will add, "and he was able to do this without shooting anyone in the face. Bush sucks!"

To shamelessly rip off Shining Path, this is going to be the Camp David accords, only with stupid people.

 

[Christo]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

Hi MT, Thanks for the clarification. But again, I have to question the bold. I mean, what is the definition of fighting words? I'm assuming that Gates wasn't yelling recipes to the cops from his porch, right?

ETA - I'm pretty sure I saw that he yelled something about the cops paying for or regretting what they were doing. Aren't those fighting words?

I guess my issue with your angle, which I respect, is that I WANT the cops to error on the side of hauling someone downtown who is verbally "assaulting" them. I think that's the safe thing to do and I think that they should, and often do, go to that "extreme" in all parts of the country with all different combinations of race of suspect and race of cop. That's the way it should be. And then, when the suspect calms down, the "charges" are dropped and he/she goes home. I believe that acting in this manner makes our communities safer for everyone, because when people lose either respect or fear of the police, bad things can happen.

So I don't care what was legal. I think the cop did the right thing and would have done the same thing if I was doing what Gates did.

 

[timschochet]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

No, it wouldn't.

Christo, based on your knowledge of what took place, do you believe the charges should have dropped?

 

[Joseph]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.

One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.

The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.

Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000?

Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

 

[Christo]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

No, it wouldn't.

Christo, based on your knowledge of what took place, do you believe the charges should have dropped?

I'm not a politician. I'm a lawyer. There was a basis for the cop to make the arrest based upon Gates' actions. And there was a basis for the DA to drop the charges based upon everything else. Both have discretion to do their jobs. In the end, it was a misdemeanor charge with a maximum fine of $150.If I'm the DA, I consider reinstating the charge because of Gates' subsequent behavior.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

No, it wouldn't.

From COMMONWEALTH vs. EARL SHOLLEY:
2. Disorderly person. The provision in G. L. c. 272, § 53, as amended through St. 1973, c. 1073, § 20, for the punishment of "idle and disorderly persons," as construed in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 304 (1967), encompasses one who "engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior," or who "creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 587-595 (1975). See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). In other words, the Commonwealth must "prove that the defendant's conduct served no legitimate purpose when it claims that the defendant created a hazardous or offensive condition." Commonwealth v. Sinai, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 544, 548 (1999). Contrast Commonwealth v. Zettel, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471, 475-476 (1999).

Unlike the situation in those cases, here there was no fighting behavior or struggle or other evidence that the defendant acted without legitimate purpose. When Sholley was first observed by the court officer, he made no threat to use force or violence. His clarion call for "war" against the judicial system was not objectively possible of immediate execution. Then came his scornful epithets against the judge: "You mean that . . . ####in' ##### sent him back to jail?" Words alone, however, including vulgar, profane and offensive speech, do not constitute conduct cognizable as disorderly conduct, see Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, 446 n.2 (1976), and the mere use of obscenities in a public place does not make out the crime of disorderly conduct. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 583. ... Compare Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 583, where the defendant created a disturbance by screaming opprobrious epithets at a saleswoman in a retail store, causing other employees and shoppers to gather. The court held that "convictions may no longer be constitutionally obtained under § 53 for the offense . . . in circumstances where the offensive and abusive language is relied on as proof of the offense." The court added that the "First and Fourteenth Amendments must be taken to disable the States from punishing public utterances of . . . unseemly expletive in order to maintain . . . a suitable level of discourse within the body politic." Id. at 589-590, quoting from Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 23 (1971).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

Hi MT, Thanks for the clarification. But again, I have to question the bold. I mean, what is the definition of fighting words? I'm assuming that Gates wasn't yelling recipes to the cops from his porch, right?

http://research.www.ww.lawyers.com/glossar...ting-words.html
Fighting words

Definition - Noun

: words which by their very utterance are likely to inflict harm on or provoke a breach of the peace by the average person to whom they are directed

I don't think even Christo would contend that Gates uttered any fighting words (based on what's in the police report).

 

[Two Deep]

The charges should not have been dropped, they should have thrown the book at this uppity smug gentleman and let the chips fall where they may. The guy has the look of a smart ###.

http://images.salon.com/books/feature/2009...gates/story.jpg

 

[Harry Manback]

MT,

I finally see what you are arguing, and while you are correct, damn dude that is weak.

Seriously weak.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

Hi MT, Thanks for the clarification. But again, I have to question the bold. I mean, what is the definition of fighting words? I'm assuming that Gates wasn't yelling recipes to the cops from his porch, right?

http://research.www.ww.lawyers.com/glossar...ting-words.html
Fighting words

Definition - Noun

: words which by their very utterance are likely to inflict harm on or provoke a breach of the peace by the average person to whom they are directed

I don't think even Christo would contend that Gates uttered any fighting words (based on what's in the police report).

Them's fightin' words!

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000? Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

this is a good post. not sure where most of the disagreement is here.I would think that almost everyone could agree that Gates handled this situation very poorly, but the cop didn't need to arrest him. There also doesn't seem to be any sign of racist intent.still have no idea why Harry Manback thinks MT's argument is "weak" unless you think anyone that mouths off to a cop should be put in jail.

 

[Joseph]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000? Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

this is a good post. not sure where most of the disagreement is here.I would think that almost everyone could agree that Gates handled this situation very poorly, but the cop didn't need to arrest him. There also doesn't seem to be any sign of racist intent.still have no idea why Harry Manback thinks MT's argument is "weak" unless you think anyone that mouths off to a cop should be put in jail.

I'd say that its weak because there's thousands of "better" examples of police overstepping their bounds every day that aren't plastered all over the national news.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.

One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.

The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.

Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000?

Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

Right. That's Conor Friedersdorf's point here, and it's hard to argue with.
Is This the Instance of Police Misconduct to Obsess About?

by Conor Friedersdorf

Interesting as it is to speculate about Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge Police Department, the attention the case is generating reflects an unfortunate feature of American public discourse: you've got someone like Radley Balko who spends the bulk of his career documenting the most grave instances of police misconduct imaginable -- including cases that involve the incarceration of innocent people for years on end -- and most of even the egregious cases he writes about never break into mainstream conversation, whereas a minor altercation involving a Harvard professor who isn't even being charged with a crime spawns wall-to-wall media coverage.

Isn't it notable that six months into his presidency, the most prominent advocacy President Obama has done on behalf of minorities mistreated by police is to stand up for his Ivy League buddy? Somehow I imagine that Professor Gates would've fared just fine absent help from Harvard's most prominent alumnus.

Whereas if President Obama spoke up at a press conference on behalf of people wrongly imprisoned due to "testimony" by police dogs, or advocated for those sexually assaulted by an officer, or spoke against prosecutors who block access to DNA testing, or called out the officer who choked a paramedic, or objected to the practice of police killing family pets, or asked the Innocence Project for a clear cut case of injustice to publicize...

I understand, of course, that Pres. Obama was asked about Henry Louis Gates, which is also part of the problem. Wrongly arrest a black man who happens to be a Harvard professor, release him without filing charges, and the national press corps asks the president to comment. Wrongly imprison for years on end a black man who happens to be working class and without celebrity, and the national press corps continues to utterly ignore a criminal justice system that routinely convicts innocent people. Apportioning blame for this sorry state of affairs isn't as important as recognizing that the news we get on these matters reflects a value system that is seriously flawed, and that news consumers bear blame for too.

 

[Harry Manback]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000? Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

this is a good post. not sure where most of the disagreement is here.I would think that almost everyone could agree that Gates handled this situation very poorly, but the cop didn't need to arrest him. There also doesn't seem to be any sign of racist intent.still have no idea why Harry Manback thinks MT's argument is "weak" unless you think anyone that mouths off to a cop should be put in jail.

Why should you be able to mouth off to a cop trying to do his job? Especially considering the entire reason he was there was to try and protect him and his property.Then, you have Gates trying to make this about race, calling him a racist in front of his colleagues and the general public (a term which I think is particularly offensive, especially coming from a person of such high stature like Gates). In fact, making those accusations under certain conditions could easily incite a riot, which would endanger the officer and the publics safety.Couple this with the fact that he intially refused to cooperate with a police investigation, MT arguing the semantics of what the particular charge was seems assinine. They were dropped, let's say he was mischarged, I'd bet that the cop could have charged him with something else, let's pretend disturbing the peace, or impeding an investigation. Whatever. It just seems like an awfully weak argument to make so vehemently.Just because he is a well educated black man does not give him free reign to be a dooshbag to the people trying to protect him.

 

[Harry Manback]

Let me be clear, I respect and understand MTs point of view (now), and he clearly has gone to great lengths to back up his reasoning, but I still think it's absurd.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

"testimony" by police dogs

WHAT THE ####?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

What bothers me is that I've seen it described as a "symbolic beer."If they're going to spend $10,000, it better dang well be an actual beer. A good one, too, like Dogfish Head’s limited-release Fort.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

On another note, does this whole Beer Summit bother anyone else? Sure, we're probably only talking about $10,000 or less for flights, security, etc., but it seems like taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab to smooth over a speaking gaffe by the President.

What bothers me is that I've seen it described as a "symbolic beer."If they're going to spend $10,000, it better dang well be an actual beer. A good one, too, like Dogfish Head’s limited-release Fort.

Are you kidding? If a Govt procured toilet seat costs $50k or whatever, I'm sure a $10k beer is a Natty Light.

 

[Christo]

See, I'm missing the bold part. Noise extends beyond his property, right? So if his loud shouting could be heard beyond his property, which seems obvious, then why does it matter if the loud shouting started on his property? What am I missing MT?

Nobody complained about the noise. The only person the noise seemed to bother was the cop, who was on Gates' property.And that's secondary anyway. If noise were the problem, the correct charge would be disturbing the peace. For disorderly conduct to be the appropriate charge, not only would the noise have to bother his neighbors, but it would have to consist of fighting words.

No, it wouldn't.

From COMMONWEALTH vs. EARL SHOLLEY:
2. Disorderly person. The provision in G. L. c. 272, § 53, as amended through St. 1973, c. 1073, § 20, for the punishment of "idle and disorderly persons," as construed in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 304 (1967), encompasses one who "engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior," or who "creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 587-595 (1975). See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). In other words, the Commonwealth must "prove that the defendant's conduct served no legitimate purpose when it claims that the defendant created a hazardous or offensive condition." Commonwealth v. Sinai, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 544, 548 (1999). Contrast Commonwealth v. Zettel, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471, 475-476 (1999).

Unlike the situation in those cases, here there was no fighting behavior or struggle or other evidence that the defendant acted without legitimate purpose. When Sholley was first observed by the court officer, he made no threat to use force or violence. His clarion call for "war" against the judicial system was not objectively possible of immediate execution. Then came his scornful epithets against the judge: "You mean that . . . ####in' ##### sent him back to jail?" Words alone, however, including vulgar, profane and offensive speech, do not constitute conduct cognizable as disorderly conduct, see Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, 446 n.2 (1976), and the mere use of obscenities in a public place does not make out the crime of disorderly conduct. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 583. ... Compare Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 583, where the defendant created a disturbance by screaming opprobrious epithets at a saleswoman in a retail store, causing other employees and shoppers to gather. The court held that "convictions may no longer be constitutionally obtained under § 53 for the offense . . . in circumstances where the offensive and abusive language is relied on as proof of the offense." The court added that the "First and Fourteenth Amendments must be taken to disable the States from punishing public utterances of . . . unseemly expletive in order to maintain . . . a suitable level of discourse within the body politic." Id. at 589-590, quoting from Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 23 (1971).

The operative word being "encompasses." Yes, it encompasses fighting words and violent behavior. But it also encompasses tumultuous behavior. And tumultuous is defined as:1. full of tumult or riotousness; marked by disturbance and uproar: a tumultuous celebration.

2. raising a great clatter and commotion; disorderly or noisy: a tumultuous crowd of students.

3. highly agitated, as the mind or emotions; distraught; turbulent.

There is no requirement that it involve fighting words.

 

[Christo]

I don't think even Christo would contend that Gates uttered any fighting words (based on what's in the police report).

I don't. What I contend is that fighting words are not necessary.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

We need to get a judge in here to decide between Christo and MT. And DW has Crim Law experience.

Let's do this.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

Aaron,Maurile might be brilliant. I dont know. I dont know him. But much in the same way that Gates is a brilliant man in some ways but was an ### munch in this instance, Maurile has been COMPLETELY ignorant in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

You guys crack me up. You can reinforce each other's arguments as much as you want, but NOTHING will ever justify Gates being arrested. It was a ridiculous arrest. Your attempts to defend it have been almost as ridiculous as the arrest itself.

I'm pretty sure that if I were an African American, I would assume racism: given the history, why not? But having heard the cop, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was still a terrible arrest. And stupid.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

Aaron,Maurile might be brilliant. I dont know. I dont know him. But much in the same way that Gates is a brilliant man in some ways but was an ### munch in this instance, Maurile has been COMPLETELY ignorant in this thread.

I don't get this. MT is focusing on what strikes me as being the least interesting aspect of this fiasco, but that's his perogative. I don't see what he's posted that's so outrageous. It's not like he's trying to argue that Gates handled the situation appropriately or that Crowley must have been motivated by racism. He's just saying that people shouldn't get arrested for "contempt of cop."

 

[timschochet]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

Aaron,Maurile might be brilliant. I dont know. I dont know him. But much in the same way that Gates is a brilliant man in some ways but was an ### munch in this instance, Maurile has been COMPLETELY ignorant in this thread.

I don't get this. MT is focusing on what strikes me as being the least interesting aspect of this fiasco, but that's his perogative. I don't see what he's posted that's so outrageous. It's not like he's trying to argue that Gates handled the situation appropriately or that Crowley must have been motivated by racism. He's just saying that people shouldn't get arrested for "contempt of cop."

What's so outrageous, to Pat, is that the the policeman might in any way be at fault.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Maurile has been COMPLETELY ignorant in this thread.

how so? b/c he thinks Gates didn't actually break a law or that he wasn't guilty of disorderly conduct? seems to be plenty of legal support for that position. the charges were dropped after all.the only counter in this thread so far seems to be Christo using the "you're wrong" argument and others saying "cops do it all the time".even Ditkaless Wonders seemed to concede that the disorderly conduct charge may have been a mistake.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I just laugh at him in his ignorance.

at anyone calling MT ignorant

Aaron,Maurile might be brilliant. I dont know. I dont know him. But much in the same way that Gates is a brilliant man in some ways but was an ### munch in this instance, Maurile has been COMPLETELY ignorant in this thread.

I don't get this. MT is focusing on what strikes me as being the least interesting aspect of this fiasco, but that's his perogative. I don't see what he's posted that's so outrageous. It's not like he's trying to argue that Gates handled the situation appropriately or that Crowley must have been motivated by racism. He's just saying that people shouldn't get arrested for "contempt of cop."

Now that's just damn

 

[Pat Patriot]

(snip)This is why I believed at the beginning, and still partially believe, that Professor Gates was arrested for committing the crime of being an Uppity Black Man.(snip)Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority.

Why even make Gates's race an issue here? Even if you think he was arrested wrongfully, it doesn't follow that he was arrested wrongfully because of his race. It sounds to like he was arrested not for being an Uppity Black Man but instead for being a doosh. That doesn't make it right, but implying that Crowley was driven by racist motives makes this much more incindiary than it needs to be.

Disorderly Conduct is ABSOLUTELY a catchall. Cops use it to calm people down when they act like ### knobs. There is much less chance of something stupid happening if the people cops are dealing with act rationally. If you dont deal with a cop with respect and in a calm fashion, you will be warned. If you ignore the warning you could be arrested. It doesnt matter whether you are black or white.Maurile wants to keep this in book land and letter of the law land. He refuses to acknowledge how the charge is used in application. If you asked every cop in Massachusetts if Gates actions warranted an arrest on disorderly conduct charges, you would get back a HUGE % of YES answers. Its called the real world. And Disorderly Conduct is a $150 fine in Massachusetts. It gets thrown out all the time. Basically any time someone decides to take the time to challenge it, it will get thrown out. I know from experience, TWICE. I have been charged twice because I said a few things the cop didnt like. I challenged it both times and won both times (knowing the Clerk of Court didnt hurt) As said earlier, this is a catchall charge that cops use to control a situation.

 

[pollardsvision]

Its kind of funny that this debate is still going on.One side is saying that there shouldn't have been an arrest at all since the crime was weak and minimal.The other side is saying that there obviously was no profiling going on based on the facts and the officer's reputation.Honestly, is it worth arguing over whether or not someone should have gotten a ride downtown for yelling at a cop? How many times does this kind of thing happen every day? 1,000? 10,000? Should the guy have been arrested? Probably not. Where does this rank this on a scale of police misuse of authority? Maybe a 1.

You are exactly right.The reason it's still an issue is because it was turned into a race issue.The reason that the merits of the arrest are being argued is b/c that's the only part of this story that can be3 debated.If Gates and the President would drop the race issue and, ideally, clarify that they do not think Crowley is guilty of racial profiling, I wouldn't care about the issue at all. Dealing with the police use of the disorderly conduct arrest is a worthy topic, but I don't really care (and neither do many other people).Gates knows this too, that's why he's never mentioned. It doesn't make for exciting PBS documentaries either.

 

[Bogeys]

You guys crack me up. You can reinforce each other's arguments as much as you want, but NOTHING will ever justify Gates being arrested. It was a ridiculous arrest. Your attempts to defend it have been almost as ridiculous as the arrest itself. I'm pretty sure that if I were an African American, I would assume racism: given the history, why not? But having heard the cop, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was still a terrible arrest. And stupid.

You did already assume racism in your first post in this thread. I am not going to dig through the thread to find it, but if I remember it correctly you were 100% sure it was racism. So now you are 100% certain that nothing will ever justify the arrest, but you are going to give the cop the benefit of the doubt on the racism part now. The funniest part is you try to make everyone believe that you are some open-minded centrist that waits on facts to make up your mind about things, but you talk in absolutes as much or more than anyone in the FFA.

 

[identikit]

You guys crack me up. You can reinforce each other's arguments as much as you want, but NOTHING will ever justify Gates being arrested. It was a ridiculous arrest. Your attempts to defend it have been almost as ridiculous as the arrest itself. I'm pretty sure that if I were an African American, I would assume racism: given the history, why not? But having heard the cop, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was still a terrible arrest. And stupid.

You did already assume racism in your first post in this thread. I am not going to dig through the thread to find it, but if I remember it correctly you were 100% sure it was racism. So now you are 100% certain that nothing will ever justify the arrest, but you are going to give the cop the benefit of the doubt on the racism part now. The funniest part is you try to make everyone believe that you are some open-minded centrist that waits on facts to make up your mind about things, but you talk in absolutes as much or more than anyone in the FFA.

This is 100% true.

 

[flapgreen]

The only thing that could've made this any better would've been them hog tying him and throwing him in the back of the cop car.

 

[timschochet]

You guys crack me up. You can reinforce each other's arguments as much as you want, but NOTHING will ever justify Gates being arrested. It was a ridiculous arrest. Your attempts to defend it have been almost as ridiculous as the arrest itself. I'm pretty sure that if I were an African American, I would assume racism: given the history, why not? But having heard the cop, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was still a terrible arrest. And stupid.

You did already assume racism in your first post in this thread. I am not going to dig through the thread to find it, but if I remember it correctly you were 100% sure it was racism. So now you are 100% certain that nothing will ever justify the arrest, but you are going to give the cop the benefit of the doubt on the racism part now. The funniest part is you try to make everyone believe that you are some open-minded centrist that waits on facts to make up your mind about things, but you talk in absolutes as much or more than anyone in the FFA.

I don't try to make anyone believe anything. I am a centrist about many things, but I would never define myself that way. I do like to think of myself as open-minded. Sometimes.