Housing While Black (2 Viewers)

[identikit]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.2. Of course you're allowed to contradict conservatives, or anyone. I just find it interesting that, though you chose to make comments in this thread nearly from its beginning, this is the first time you've made the "content doesn't matter" argument. When others wrote that Gates "got what he deserved" you did not choose to contradict them.3. In truth, I don't know whether MT's argument is unanswerable or not. What I know is that YOU failed to provide a reasonable argument against it. Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority. I'm going to paste an article on this.4. You're right I should not assume what your worldview is. I apologize for that. Your statements on this issue (and others) can each stand or fail on their own accord.5. Mea Culpa on the Ricci. Doesn't make me wrong here. Again, my statements on each issue can stand or fail on their own.

0 for 5

 

[Christo]

From today's Los Angeles Times, an article that sheds some light, IMO, on the African-American perspective regarding this arrest:

Black males' fear of racial profiling very real, regardless of class

Several African American professionals find professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s recent encounter with police all too easy to relate to. Their lingering question is when to speak up.

By Richard Fausset and P.J. Huffstutter

July 25, 2009

Like Henry Louis Gates Jr., they are professionals, men of status and achievement who have excelled in a nation that once shunned black men.

And for many of them, their only shock -- upon learning of the celebrated scholar's recent run-in with police -- was the moment of recognition.

They know too well the pivotal moment Gates faced at his Massachusetts home. It was that moment of suspicion when confronted by police, the moment one wonders, in a flash of panic, anger or confusion: Maybe I am being treated this way because I'm black.

And therein lies the problem. "Maybe." "Maybe" just doesn't cut it. Reasonable people don't want to listen when your trigger is "maybe."

 

[Max Power]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains.... he is a racist. Yet if the officer lets the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it, he is a crappy cop...Edited for terrible grammer

 

[Christo]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains he is a racist. Yet if the officer let the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it is a crappy cop...

I'm glad you bolded that part. I forgot to respond to it.Massachusetts law doesn't require that the disturbance cause other people to be alarmed, annoyed or inconvenienced. It just requires the disturbance to create a risk of alarm, annoyance or inconvenience.

 

[RobMoney]

Gates agrees to beer with Obama, policeman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32144000/ns/us..._and_ethnicity/

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains.... he is a racist. Yet if the officer lets the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it, he is a crappy cop...Edited for terrible grammer

In other threads Tim has advocated for cops to be able to step in and stop you from doing stupid things. He's even in favor of them detaining you when you've done nothing wrong just because you're making a bad choice. Isn't that right, Timmy?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

Once I realize I've done something completely and utterly stupid I usually pray that people forget about it as well. I'm fortunate in that it usually doesn't become a national issue. And it's usually when I wake up with a hangover and realize how drunk I was when I committed the idiotically stupid act. I wonder if he was drinking on the way back from China.....

 

[Christo]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains.... he is a racist. Yet if the officer lets the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it, he is a crappy cop...Edited for terrible grammer

In other threads Tim has advocated for cops to be able to step in and stop you from doing stupid things. He's even in favor of them detaining you when you've done nothing wrong just because you're making a bad choice. Isn't that right, Timmy?

Remind me again what the last one was. It was absolutely ridiculous and only happened about a week ago but I can't remember.I do remember it was another thread where timmy had to admit looking before leaping with his opinion.

 

[Sweet J]

Gates agrees to beer with Obama, policeman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32144000/ns/us..._and_ethnicity/

This whole thing is so weird.

 

[identikit]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains.... he is a racist. Yet if the officer lets the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it, he is a crappy cop...Edited for terrible grammer

In other threads Tim has advocated for cops to be able to step in and stop you from doing stupid things. He's even in favor of them detaining you when you've done nothing wrong just because you're making a bad choice. Isn't that right, Timmy?

Remind me again what the last one was. It was absolutely ridiculous and only happened about a week ago but I can't remember.

The upside-down flag thing perhaps....

 

[Short Corner]

The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.

1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. 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.

So if an officer steps in and stops a bad situation from escalating to the point someone complains.... he is a racist. Yet if the officer lets the situation get out of control when he could have stopped it, he is a crappy cop...Edited for terrible grammer

In other threads Tim has advocated for cops to be able to step in and stop you from doing stupid things. He's even in favor of them detaining you when you've done nothing wrong just because you're making a bad choice. Isn't that right, Timmy?

[Red]Oh...that was different.[/Red]

 

[timschochet]

It was the upside down flag, and the church which has a banner claiming Islam is from the Devil. And yes, I believe those situations ARE different from someone yelling something while standing on his own porch. I still don't understand why he was arrested. Christo's explanation about disturbing the peace may satisfy some of you. Not me.

 

[Christo]

It was the upside down flag, and the church which has a banner claiming Islam is from the Devil. And yes, I believe those situations ARE different from someone yelling something while standing on his own porch. I still don't understand why he was arrested. Christo's explanation about disturbing the peace may satisfy some of you. Not me.

timmy has spoken/thread

 

[StrikeS2k]

It was the upside down flag, and the church which has a banner claiming Islam is from the Devil. And yes, I believe those situations ARE different from someone yelling something while standing on his own porch. I still don't understand why he was arrested. Christo's explanation about disturbing the peace may satisfy some of you. Not me.

I don't remember if it was that thread but the situation was brought up of a white person wanting to walk in to an AA neighborhood where they would likely be confronted by AA's. You said you thought it would be ok for the police to physically prevent a person from going in to that neighborhood, for their own good.

 

[Max Power]

Is it me or what? I just don't understand this quote by Obama...

during his Friday remarks, Obama said he hoped the controversy surrounding Gates' arrest provides Americans with "a teachable moment" on how they can improve "relations between police officers and minority communities."

What is "teachable" about this situation and why is race brought up AGAIN? To me it seems like Obama still sees this as a racial motivated arrest...

 

[Jim11]

I guarantee that Gates means it as a "teaching moment" for the cop or the country, but not for him. Gates remains a racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_...olar_disorderly

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said.

 

[timschochet]

It was the upside down flag, and the church which has a banner claiming Islam is from the Devil. And yes, I believe those situations ARE different from someone yelling something while standing on his own porch. I still don't understand why he was arrested. Christo's explanation about disturbing the peace may satisfy some of you. Not me.

I don't remember if it was that thread but the situation was brought up of a white person wanting to walk in to an AA neighborhood where they would likely be confronted by AA's. You said you thought it would be ok for the police to physically prevent a person from going in to that neighborhood, for their own good.

I did. And I believe that. But there is NO analogy to this situation.Again, this professor is a 59 year old man, who can't walk with using a cane, on his own front porch! Who was he a threat to? What order was he disrupting? Guys like Christo go to the absolute limits of the law to try to defend this arrest, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense knows that you don't arrest a guy for this. That's why they dropped the charges very quickly.I'm still left with two possible reasons for the arrest, and these are the ONLY possible reasons, IMO, that make any kind of sense at all:1. The cop wasn't used to a black man being "uppity"- therefore racism is an issue.2. The cop's ego got in the way and he just decided to arrest the guy because he was pissed off at being yelled at. Therefore, racism is not an issue. (I suspect, and would like to think, that this is the case.)Either way, there is no question in my mind that the cop is at fault here. Propbably Gates shouldn't have been rude to him, but it's the arrest that's in question here, not the rudeness.

 

[timschochet]

I guarantee that Gates means it as a "teaching moment" for the cop or the country, but not for him. Gates remains a racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_...olar_disorderly

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said.

I think Gates is wrong about this. But there is no evidence that he is a racist. Your definition of racism, IMO, is skewed, as is many conservatives I have been reading lately. A Black man who sees racism in every confrontation between whites and blacks is wrong, probably insecure, perhaps even paranoid. History tends to justify this paranoia, unfortunately. But that does not make that person a racist. A racist is someone who believes that one is either superior or inferior based on skin color. Gates' entire life and career has been dedicated to the proposition that the opposite is true.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I guarantee that Gates means it as a "teaching moment" for the cop or the country, but not for him. Gates remains a racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_...olar_disorderly

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said.

I think Gates is wrong about this. But there is no evidence that he is a racist. Your definition of racism, IMO, is skewed, as is many conservatives I have been reading lately. A Black man who sees racism in every confrontation between whites and blacks is wrong, probably insecure, perhaps even paranoid. History tends to justify this paranoia, unfortunately. But that does not make that person a racist. A racist is someone who believes that one is either superior or inferior based on skin color. Gates' entire life and career has been dedicated to the proposition that the opposite is true.

Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

Function: noun

Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

 

[Witz]

It was the upside down flag, and the church which has a banner claiming Islam is from the Devil. And yes, I believe those situations ARE different from someone yelling something while standing on his own porch. I still don't understand why he was arrested. Christo's explanation about disturbing the peace may satisfy some of you. Not me.

I don't remember if it was that thread but the situation was brought up of a white person wanting to walk in to an AA neighborhood where they would likely be confronted by AA's. You said you thought it would be ok for the police to physically prevent a person from going in to that neighborhood, for their own good.

I did. And I believe that. But there is NO analogy to this situation.Again, this professor is a 59 year old man, who can't walk with using a cane, on his own front porch! Who was he a threat to? What order was he disrupting? Guys like Christo go to the absolute limits of the law to try to defend this arrest, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense knows that you don't arrest a guy for this. That's why they dropped the charges very quickly.I'm still left with two possible reasons for the arrest, and these are the ONLY possible reasons, IMO, that make any kind of sense at all:1. The cop wasn't used to a black man being "uppity"- therefore racism is an issue.2. The cop's ego got in the way and he just decided to arrest the guy because he was pissed off at being yelled at. Therefore, racism is not an issue. (I suspect, and would like to think, that this is the case.)Either way, there is no question in my mind that the cop is at fault here. Propbably Gates shouldn't have been rude to him, but it's the arrest that's in question here, not the rudeness.

Why is this so difficult to understand or grasp? Despite numerous warnings to stop his verbal assualts, Gates did not heed the warnings and thus was arrested. There were ample oppurtunities for Gates to end the incident but he did not. For you to say that there is no question that the cop is at fault here is ludicrous. Gates wasn't just rude to him - he didn't bump into him and not say 'sorry' - he was hostile and combative the moment the officer darkened his doorway. For you to gloss over the cause (Gates actions) and entirely focus on the result (his arrest) is again ludicrous. Also - don't bring age into your argument as it only weakens an already weak argument. An individuals age is immaterial to the law (unless you're living in some alternate 'Logans Run' world).

 

[GroveDiesel]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

 

[Witz]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

Be careful though as there will be some that will say the only reason he is supporting the arrest will be due to fear of losing his job (someone mentioned this umpteen pages back in this thread).

 

[timschochet]

Why is this so difficult to understand or grasp? Despite numerous warnings to stop his verbal assualts, Gates did not heed the warnings and thus was arrested. There were ample oppurtunities for Gates to end the incident but he did not. For you to say that there is no question that the cop is at fault here is ludicrous. Gates wasn't just rude to him - he didn't bump into him and not say 'sorry' - he was hostile and combative the moment the officer darkened his doorway. For you to gloss over the cause (Gates actions) and entirely focus on the result (his arrest) is again ludicrous.

Also - don't bring age into your argument as it only weakens an already weak argument. An individuals age is immaterial to the law (unless you're living in some alternate 'Logans Run' world).

I brought his age in because there is no way that what you refer to as a "verbal assault" is anyway threatening to the policeman. Furthermore, the policeman had no right at all to warn a professor to stop talking or even yelling, unless he (the officer) considered this to be somehow dangerous to the public. Since Gates never left his front porch, and there were several policeman around, that is a ludicrous notion. Gates was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, which is something that should be protected unless it is a threat to the public, which clearly it is not. The proper action for the police officer was to simply leave.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why is this so difficult to understand or grasp? Despite numerous warnings to stop his verbal assualts, Gates did not heed the warnings and thus was arrested. There were ample oppurtunities for Gates to end the incident but he did not. For you to say that there is no question that the cop is at fault here is ludicrous. Gates wasn't just rude to him - he didn't bump into him and not say 'sorry' - he was hostile and combative the moment the officer darkened his doorway. For you to gloss over the cause (Gates actions) and entirely focus on the result (his arrest) is again ludicrous.

Also - don't bring age into your argument as it only weakens an already weak argument. An individuals age is immaterial to the law (unless you're living in some alternate 'Logans Run' world).

I brought his age in because there is no way that what you refer to as a "verbal assault" is anyway threatening to the policeman. Furthermore, the policeman had no right at all to warn a professor to stop talking or even yelling, unless he (the officer) considered this to be somehow dangerous to the public. Since Gates never left his front porch, and there were several policeman around, that is a ludicrous notion. Gates was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, which is something that should be protected unless it is a threat to the public, which clearly it is not. The proper action for the police officer was to simply leave.

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

 

[Twilight]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

While I kinda understand where you are coming from (although I feel you are wrong), these kind of absolutes are making you look as silly as kaa/bgp or Jim11, so you know.

 

[Witz]

Why is this so difficult to understand or grasp? Despite numerous warnings to stop his verbal assualts, Gates did not heed the warnings and thus was arrested. There were ample oppurtunities for Gates to end the incident but he did not. For you to say that there is no question that the cop is at fault here is ludicrous. Gates wasn't just rude to him - he didn't bump into him and not say 'sorry' - he was hostile and combative the moment the officer darkened his doorway. For you to gloss over the cause (Gates actions) and entirely focus on the result (his arrest) is again ludicrous.

Also - don't bring age into your argument as it only weakens an already weak argument. An individuals age is immaterial to the law (unless you're living in some alternate 'Logans Run' world).

I brought his age in because there is no way that what you refer to as a "verbal assault" is anyway threatening to the policeman. Furthermore, the policeman had no right at all to warn a professor to stop talking or even yelling, unless he (the officer) considered this to be somehow dangerous to the public. Since Gates never left his front porch, and there were several policeman around, that is a ludicrous notion. Gates was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, which is something that should be protected unless it is a threat to the public, which clearly it is not. The proper action for the police officer was to simply leave.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't use his age as a reason to show his yelling wasn't threatening as the law does not differentiate based on age. Also - it has been posted ad-nauseum in this thread around the definition of the law for which he was arrested for. Distrubing the peace <> Dangerous to the public. And this is now a 'Freedom of Speech' issue? I love how the rules keep changing in this discussion.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

While I kinda understand where you are coming from (although I feel you are wrong), these kind of absolutes are making you look as silly as kaa/bgp or Jim11, so you know.

I have either written "in my opinion" or "IMO" so many times that I figure it should be assumed at this point, but in case it isn't:1. Everything I write is my opinion only. It is very subjective.

2. If you have read my posts on this subject, you know that for the most part they are far from absolute. I have been conflicted as to whether or not racism was a factor, and several other elements. But I am 100% convinced that Gates should not have been arrested. And the Cambridge Police Department agrees with me, because they dropped the charges.

 

[Witz]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

While I kinda understand where you are coming from (although I feel you are wrong), these kind of absolutes are making you look as silly as kaa/bgp or Jim11, so you know.

I have either written "in my opinion" or "IMO" so many times that I figure it should be assumed at this point, but in case it isn't:1. Everything I write is my opinion only. It is very subjective.

2. If you have read my posts on this subject, you know that for the most part they are far from absolute. I have been conflicted as to whether or not racism was a factor, and several other elements. But I am 100% convinced that Gates should not have been arrested. And the Cambridge Police Department agrees with me, because they dropped the charges.

Just because charges are dropped, does not mean the initial arrest was not valid. Charges are dropped all the time for any number of reasons (and actually - while the Cambridge Police Department dropped the charges, they also stated that they supported the steps that the officer took which means they agreed with the officers actions). Again - you can't slice off a section of an action to serve your argument - you need to take the entire piece.

 

[timschochet]

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

I don't know what the law says about this. My opinion is that if a neighbor complains, a resident should be warned and even ticketed. An arrest would be awfully extreme.Even so, it's hardly analogous to a man yelling at police on his front porch. The main difference being the policeman knows that if he leaves, the yelling will stop. The policeman is supposed to use common sense when making arrests.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

I don't know what the law says about this. My opinion is that if a neighbor complains, a resident should be warned and even ticketed. An arrest would be awfully extreme.Even so, it's hardly analogous to a man yelling at police on his front porch. The main difference being the policeman knows that if he leaves, the yelling will stop. The policeman is supposed to use common sense when making arrests.

Agreed. A man yelling at the police from his front porch is much more threatening than someone playing music.

 

[Witz]

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

I don't know what the law says about this. My opinion is that if a neighbor complains, a resident should be warned and even ticketed. An arrest would be awfully extreme.Even so, it's hardly analogous to a man yelling at police on his front porch. The main difference being the policeman knows that if he leaves, the yelling will stop. The policeman is supposed to use common sense when making arrests.

In that example - let's say the officer warns the individual to stop playing their stereo too loudly (issues a warnings to the individual). If the individual continues to play their stereo too loudly - let's say another warning is given. If the individual still continues to play the stereo loudly despite numerous warnings, he is going to arrested (not ticketed). The police are there to uphold the law - if after repeated warnings, the individual did not comply, an arrest would be warranted to stop the unlawful activity from continuing. Explain to me how this is any different from what occurred with Gates? I'll help you out by telling you that there is no difference.Edit - to fix my awful spelling!

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Gates is finally admitting that he tried to drum up some fake news so he could write a book and a movie. Found out that he picked the wrong cop to do it on.

whoops better luck next time.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

Everyone?Surely, he means everyone but the FFA.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

I don't know what the law says about this. My opinion is that if a neighbor complains, a resident should be warned and even ticketed. An arrest would be awfully extreme.Even so, it's hardly analogous to a man yelling at police on his front porch. The main difference being the policeman knows that if he leaves, the yelling will stop. The policeman is supposed to use common sense when making arrests.

In that example - let's say the officer warns the individual to stop playing their stereo too loudly (issues a warnings to the individual). If the individual continues to play their stereo too loudly - let's say another warning is given. If the individual still continues to play the stereo loudly despite numerous warnings, he is going to arrested (not ticketed). The police are there to uphold the law - if after repeated warnings, the individual did not comply, an arrest would be warranted to stop the unlawful activity from continuing. Explain to me how this is any different from what occurred with Gates? I'll help you out by telling you that there is no difference.

You won't get arrested for playing your radio too loudly if your neighbors don't complain.Gates' neighbors didn't complain about his yelling. The only one it seemed to bother was the cop, and that doesn't count.

 

[jonessed]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

Everyone?Surely, he means everyone but the FFA.

<_<

 

[timschochet]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

<_< Gee, thanks Strike. So a black cop agrees with your position, and suddenly because he's black he is an expert on racist situations? When did you ever give a Black person this sort of authority in the past when they shouted racism?

Did it ever occur to you that any policeman in that position would have backed up Crowley no matter what? To express disagreement with Crowley there would be to commit a betrayal far worse than the arrest in the first place. A far better opinion would be the dozens of legal experts on TV, not associated with this police department, who have stated that this arrest was questionable at best.

Strangely enough, they were all named Cliff...

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

Everyone?Surely, he means everyone but the FFA.

<_<

 

[timschochet]

Per Christo's post way back, is it a threat to the public when someone plays a stereo loudly?

I don't know what the law says about this. My opinion is that if a neighbor complains, a resident should be warned and even ticketed. An arrest would be awfully extreme.Even so, it's hardly analogous to a man yelling at police on his front porch. The main difference being the policeman knows that if he leaves, the yelling will stop. The policeman is supposed to use common sense when making arrests.

In that example - let's say the officer warns the individual to stop playing their stereo too loudly (issues a warnings to the individual). If the individual continues to play their stereo too loudly - let's say another warning is given. If the individual still continues to play the stereo loudly despite numerous warnings, he is going to arrested (not ticketed). The police are there to uphold the law - if after repeated warnings, the individual did not comply, an arrest would be warranted to stop the unlawful activity from continuing. Explain to me how this is any different from what occurred with Gates? I'll help you out by telling you that there is no difference.

You won't get arrested for playing your radio too loudly if your neighbors don't complain.Gates' neighbors didn't complain about his yelling. The only one it seemed to bother was the cop, and that doesn't count.

<_< And the cop was aware that the quickest way to stop the yelling, if that was the aim, was for the cop to simply leave. Which he should have done, since he knew at that point there was no crime being committed.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

<_< Gee, thanks Strike. So a black cop agrees with your position, and suddenly because he's black he is an expert on racist situations? When did you ever give a Black person this sort of authority in the past when they shouted racism?

Did it ever occur to you that any policeman in that position would have backed up Crowley no matter what? To express disagreement with Crowley there would be to commit a betrayal far worse than the arrest in the first place. A far better opinion would be the dozens of legal experts on TV, not associated with this police department, who have stated that this arrest was questionable at best.

Strangely enough, they were all named Cliff...

I think that any policeman who witnesses a valid arrest should back it up. Why wouldn't they, whether they were black, white, or grey? But nothing you said above changes the fact that this officer is a HECK of a lot more qualified to judge the legitimacy of the arrest than you.

 

[timschochet]

I think that any policeman who witnesses a valid arrest should back it up. Why wouldn't they, whether they were black, white, or grey? But nothing you said above changes the fact that this officer is a HECK of a lot more qualified to judge the legitimacy of the arrest than you.

Are you always so trusting in authority?

 

[identikit]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

Couldn't disagree more...

Cliff was Mensa material when weighed by your comparison...

 

[StrikeS2k]

I think that any policeman who witnesses a valid arrest should back it up. Why wouldn't they, whether they were black, white, or grey? But nothing you said above changes the fact that this officer is a HECK of a lot more qualified to judge the legitimacy of the arrest than you.

Are you always so trusting in authority?

Not at all Cliffy. I was all over that cop that shot someone at the BART station in SF a few months ago. I could tell right away that was total BS. Go back and read the thread. But when I don't have a reason not to I don't try to make up reasons like you and many AA's such as our good friend Professor Gates.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

Couldn't disagree more...

Cliff was Mensa material when weighed by your comparison...

But what do you really think of me, identikit?

 

[identikit]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

Let's unpack this a little bit more. He's black so he'd know more about being black and being in racist situations than you. He's a cop so he'd know more about what is appropriate conduct to warrant arrest than you. Oh, and he was there so he'd know more about this specific case than you. Yet somehow you're qualified to call him 100% wrong. Do you have any idea how that makes you look? You're our equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.

Couldn't disagree more...

Cliff was Mensa material when weighed by your comparison...

But what do you really think of me, identikit?

I was talking about Cliff...It's not always about you, WozWiki

 

[TexanFan02]

Apparently the black officer at the scene supported the arrest 100%.

Link

then he was 100% wrong.

<_< Just stop.

 

[flapgreen]

The picture of him being brought out of the house in handcuffs is GOLD. Right after my wife told me the story, that popped up on TV and I laughed hysterically. The expression on his face was nothing short of awesome. He looked like an old drug dealer being taken away to prison.

btw, guy's an idiot

 

[ArcticEdge]

The picture of him being brought out of the house in handcuffs is GOLD. Right after my wife told me the story, that popped up on TV and I laughed hysterically. The expression on his face was nothing short of awesome. He looked like an old drug dealer being taken away to prison. btw, guy's an idiot