Housing While Black (2 Viewers)

[johnnycakes]

The U.S. of KKK-A.

 

[Christo]

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.

Obviously. What's pathetic is the fact that it's been posted several times and you still don't wish to educate yourself. Even more pathetic is you accusing me of having an opinion that's not based in logic or the law.

 

[Christo]

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.

How do you know this?

 

[Christo]

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.

They didn't have to do so. A cop was already there. If you see someone shot in front of a cop, do you run over and tell the cop that someone was shot?

 

[Christo]

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.

How do you know this?

 

[Christo]

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?

When compared to trusting your opinion?You must be joking.

 

[roadkill1292]

Apparently Gates is calling for everyone to move on.

Everyone?Surely, he means everyone but the FFA.

Yo' mama and I'll move on when we're good and ready.

 

[pollardsvision]

Gates agrees to beer with Obama, policeman

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

This whole thing is so weird.

This thing sounds a bit condescending.""I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sgt. Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige," Gates said in a statement on TheRoot.com, an Internet newsletter he edits."

Teaching moment?

I imagine Gates plans on doing teaching (with Obama has his TA).

I'm not sure yet (I"m sure there's a comment clarifying somewhere), but I'd bet he means racial profiling. This will be a chance for a couple of educated men to sit down with a dumb cop to further educate him on the dangers of racial profiling, as well educate the public.

I have a feeling that Gates plans on continuing the same lesson he was trying to teach on his front porch (this time, in a different tone, to a much broader audience).

There are many ways to use this episode as a "teaching moment", I can't imagine how any of those involve Gates doing the teaching.

They are bringing Crowley to be taught something. From this experience, there is only one thing he (possibly) needs to be taught: How to better control the situation when dealing with a deranged, out-of-control, old man who's being verbally abusive and making threats. I assure you that's not on the lesson plan.

It's a shame Crowley has to accept this invitation. He's going to be made out to be dumb redneck and the condescending tones in all of this will still make him out to be a racist (if these 2 men are saying this is a teaching moment regarding racial profiling).

Again, I have no problem with the idea, but it's very likely that rhetoric leading up to this event will defeat the entire purpose (well not for Gates and Obama).

 

[pollardsvision]

To go along with the above, this sounds like a man and his wife get in a big fight about him leaving his socks out. As they are making up, she mentions that she wants to use this as a "teaching moment".

We all know what she means: Teach that lazy SOB to not leave his socks out.

It doesn't mean: Teach this woman to not blow up over something as petty as a sock being out.

 

[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.

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.

How do you know that Gates' yelling didn't bother the neighbors?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Gates agrees to beer with Obama, policeman

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

This whole thing is so weird.

This thing sounds a bit condescending.""I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sgt. Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige," Gates said in a statement on TheRoot.com, an Internet newsletter he edits."

Of course it sounds condescending. Gates is a Harvard professor. He's been trained his whole life to believe that the #### he says is special. It's the intellectual version of pampered athlete syndrome. This type of attitude is rampant in academia, and frankly, also in top tier business schools.

 

[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.

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.

They didn't have to do so. A cop was already there. If you see someone shot in front of a cop, do you run over and tell the cop that someone was shot?

 

[thesurfshop19]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

 

[Christo]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

 

[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.

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.

They didn't have to do so. A cop was already there. If you see someone shot in front of a cop, do you run over and tell the cop that someone was shot?

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

 

[Harry Manback]

he's a race baiter

I love it when talk radio chimes in. Always will be on point.

He is a race baiter, he's on par with Obama's other good buddy rev wright.

EVERYONE IS RACIALLY MOTIVATED.EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RACE.THERE CAN BE NO OTHER FACTORS.

 

[Parrothead]

Funny how Gates and the president started backing off when they realized this wasn't a 'rogue' cop, in fact the officer was hand selected by a BLACK commissioner to train other officers on racial profiling.. I guess Gates needs to screen his potential marks a little better

The absolute hilariousness that Obama called the actions stupid before even reading a police report, or knowing who and what he was talking about is a reflection of the statement "America always gets the government it deserves"..

I wonder if Obama will court the police unions and FOP's for the 2012 elections?

 

[pollardsvision]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

That's not the crux of this issue, though it should be.Gates, Obama, and others have used their answers to that question (wrongful arrest?) to also answer a different, more damning question (Is cop guilty of racial profiling?)If Gates was complaining of being mistakenly arrested for the very minor charge that it was, no big deal, he's got a point.He's complaining of being the vicitim of racial profiling.People are still using the wrongful arrest to justify the racial profiling claim, which is just crazy.If Gates complained about the actual issue at hand, this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, he didn't.It's shame that scholars, like Gates and Obama, don't quite understand simple rules of causation.Very minor wrongful arrest + White Cop + Black man does not = Racial Profiling

 

[thatguythere]

This thread is 3 pages of discussion and 20 pages of groundhog day.

 

[Sweet J]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

Actually, it really is the cruxt of the issue. The issue is: Was is right for this cop to arrest this man, regardless of the man's skin color? If it would have been wrong to arrest a white guy in this situation, it would be correspondingly wrong for the cop to arrest a black guy.Now, and I think this is where Maurile is coming from: Just because the cop did not take race into consideration when arresting Gates, does NOT mean that it was OK to arrest Gates. (I disagree with Maurile that this is an "interesting question." Cops make split second decisions all the time; they are bound to make the wrong decision occassionally).So, my opinion: The cop did not treat Gates differently than he would have treated a white guy because he was black. From everything I have read about the cop, he was a young racially concious dude who is a "good guy." And everything I've read about the situation comports to my idea of how cops behave (good ones and bad ones): they don't like getting berated, and will arrest an SOB berating them. Even if they are pushing the limits of their authority.I think that if (I'm just pulling a number out of my rear) 90% of cops would arrest 90% of men, white or black, who are berating them in similar fashion, then saying "he shouldn't have done that" is a little simplistic. I could go as far as saying: "Cops have to make split second judgment calls. Sometimes an action, while within the bounds of 'reasonableness' for the situation, turns out to be the wrong decision. This may have been one of those situations."

 

[Sweet J]

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

What Maurile is getting at is that some acts are by their very nature a crime. Murder is a crime no matter how many people are there to be bothered by it. Some acts are only a crime to the extent they bother other people, such as playing your radio at a certain volume (or yelling). It's ok for the person arguing with you to be right about some things.

 

[Sweet J]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

That's not the crux of this issue, though it should be.

"if it "should be" the cruxt of the issue, then it is. If the cop was right to arrest any man, white or black, then he was right to arrest Gates. But that doesn't make him any more or less racist.If the cop was wrong to arrest any man, white or black, then he was wrong to arrest Gates. But that doesn't make him any more or less racist.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

Actually, it really is the cruxt of the issue. The issue is: What is right for this cop to arrest this man, regardless of the man's skin color? If it would have been wrong to arrest a white guy in this situation, it would be correspondingly wrong for the cop to arrest a black guy.Now, and I think this is where Maurile is coming from: Just because the cop did not take race into consideration when arresting Gates, does NOT mean that it was OK to arrest Gates. (I disagree with Maurile that this is an "interesting question." Cops make split second decisions all the time; they are bound to make the wrong decision occassionally).So, my opinion: The cop did not treat Gates differently than he would have treated a white guy because he was black. From everything I have read about the cop, he was a young racially concious dude who is a "good guy." And everything I've read about the situation comports to my idea of how cops behave (good ones and bad ones): they don't like getting berated, and will arrest an SOB berating them. Even if they are pushing the limits of their authority.I think that if (I'm just pulling a number out of my rear) 90% of cops would arrest 90% of men, white or black, who are berating them in similar fashion, then saying "he shouldn't have done that" is a little simplistic. I could go as far as saying: "Cops have to make split second judgment calls. Sometimes an action, while within the bounds of 'reasonableness' for the situation, turns out to be the wrong decision. This may have been one of those situations."

Sweet J - you've articulated this quite well. Maybe I'm just cynical, but based on talking with my cop buddies, a big chunk of people would be arrested in this situation. Acting like an ##### to cops usually leads to a poor result. The couple of times I've mouthed off to cops, it required a LOT of backpedaling and apologizing before I escaped without some punishment. Can only imagine how bad it would have been in those situations if I had proceeded by yelling at the cops instead.

 

[Christo]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

Actually, it really is the cruxt of the issue. The issue is: What is right for this cop to arrest this man, regardless of the man's skin color? If it would have been wrong to arrest a white guy in this situation, it would be correspondingly wrong for the cop to arrest a black guy.

You've stated two different things. Which is it?

 

[Harry Manback]

What if the cops was black? And this happens the exact same way.

Does Gates react the same? Does he accuse him of being racist?

Gates is a racist, plain and simple. Maybe due to some terrible instances of racism against himself and his family in the past, but if he is supposedly this educated, this renowned, and this respected, he should know better than to let this cloud his judgment and make a fool of himself.

 

[johnnycakes]

Actually, Gates looks like Grady just trimmed his beard some.

Gates

Grady

Police told this reporter that, “This uppity Black dude” had obviously broken into this nice house in a white neighborhood and replaced all the pictures of the family that actually lived there, with pictures of black people, in an attempt to fool officers.

When officers discovered that Professor Gates actually owned the home they were so surprised that they arrested Gates anyway for not using a proper tone and showing them the respect they believed they deserved because they are obvious heroes that protect the rights of Americans every day.

 

[Christo]

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

What Maurile is getting at is that some acts are by their very nature a crime. Murder is a crime no matter how many people are there to be bothered by it. Some acts are only a crime to the extent they bother other people, such as playing your radio at a certain volume (or yelling). It's ok for the person arguing with you to be right about some things.

I'll have to go re-read what MT said because this is not what I got from it. In fact, in one of the posts that I responded to, MT stated that what Gates did was not a crime because Gates was not intending to incite others to violence. That is not the standard for disturbing the peace.

 

[Sweet J]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

Actually, it really is the cruxt of the issue. The issue is: What is right for this cop to arrest this man, regardless of the man's skin color? If it would have been wrong to arrest a white guy in this situation, it would be correspondingly wrong for the cop to arrest a black guy.

You've stated two different things. Which is it?

The bolded is (in my opinion) the "real" issue. The italicized is (in my opinion) a truism. Even if it was "wrong" to arrest Gates, it doesn't make the cop a racist, or the situation racially motivated. And now that I think about it, I think I have to retract my disagreement with Maurile regarding whether the cop made the right or wrong decision in arresting Gates is "interesting." I'm starting to thing it is.

 

[pollardsvision]

Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

That's not the crux of this issue, though it should be.

"if it "should be" the cruxt of the issue, then it is. If the cop was right to arrest any man, white or black, then he was right to arrest Gates. But that doesn't make him any more or less racist.If the cop was wrong to arrest any man, white or black, then he was wrong to arrest Gates. But that doesn't make him any more or less racist.

I agree with what you are saying. We could go back and forth on what the crux of this issue really is.The point is, People are arguing one issue (the arrest) and using it to make conclusions about something else (racial profiling).It's funny, of all this talk about the disorderly conduct arrest, yet I don't recall hearing anyone call for a task force or committee to get disorderly conduct laws changed or clarified. It could be a great teaching moment for that, if one wanted. Yet, I'm sure we'll have many teaching moments about the dangers of racial profiling. Disorderly conduct laws are incredibly vague and give cops alot of latitude. Is that right and should they be changed? That would be a worthy discussion, but Gates and Obama made this about racial profiling (others followed suit).That's why I say it should be the crux of the issue, people pretend it's the crux of the issue, but it really isn't (otherwise this thread wouldn't have hit page 3).

 

[Christo]

Should you be *arrested* for being a total jerk to a cop in your own house? That's the crux of the issue.

Actually, it isn't. But you keep thinking that.

Actually, it really is the cruxt of the issue. The issue is: What is right for this cop to arrest this man, regardless of the man's skin color? If it would have been wrong to arrest a white guy in this situation, it would be correspondingly wrong for the cop to arrest a black guy.

You've stated two different things. Which is it?

The bolded is (in my opinion) the "real" issue. The italicized is (in my opinion) a truism. Even if it was "wrong" to arrest Gates, it doesn't make the cop a racist, or the situation racially motivated. And now that I think about it, I think I have to retract my disagreement with Maurile regarding whether the cop made the right or wrong decision in arresting Gates is "interesting." I'm starting to thing it is.

I'm talking about your agreement with the prior poster that the issue is whether you should be arrested for being a jerk to a cop in your house.

 

[Gigantomachia]

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

You two make a cute couple.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

What Maurile is getting at is that some acts are by their very nature a crime. Murder is a crime no matter how many people are there to be bothered by it. Some acts are only a crime to the extent they bother other people, such as playing your radio at a certain volume (or yelling). It's ok for the person arguing with you to be right about some things.

I'll have to go re-read what MT said because this is not what I got from it. In fact, in one of the posts that I responded to, MT stated that what Gates did was not a crime because Gates was not intending to incite others to violence. That is not the standard for disturbing the peace.

He was not charged with disturbing the peace. (Which is another obvious difference with the radio example.)

 

[Gigantomachia]

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

What Maurile is getting at is that some acts are by their very nature a crime. Murder is a crime no matter how many people are there to be bothered by it. Some acts are only a crime to the extent they bother other people, such as playing your radio at a certain volume (or yelling). It's ok for the person arguing with you to be right about some things.

I'll have to go re-read what MT said because this is not what I got from it. In fact, in one of the posts that I responded to, MT stated that what Gates did was not a crime because Gates was not intending to incite others to violence. That is not the standard for disturbing the peace.

The only people disturbing the peace were the cops, as per usual.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Christo responded before I could, but I was going to ask the something similar. Using your train of thought - the only time an individual can be arrested is if a complaint is filed? Everyone knows that is not true (and I really believe you do as well but bravo for sticking to your guns on this however misguided your belief is). Do you want to rephrase what you were trying to say?

What Maurile is getting at is that some acts are by their very nature a crime. Murder is a crime no matter how many people are there to be bothered by it. Some acts are only a crime to the extent they bother other people, such as playing your radio at a certain volume (or yelling). It's ok for the person arguing with you to be right about some things.

I'll have to go re-read what MT said because this is not what I got from it. In fact, in one of the posts that I responded to, MT stated that what Gates did was not a crime because Gates was not intending to incite others to violence. That is not the standard for disturbing the peace.

He was not charged with disturbing the peace.

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm talking about your agreement with the prior poster that the issue is whether you should be arrested for being a jerk to a cop in your house.

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but I'm not sure it's important. And if I've changed my mind in this thread, that's because this is a strange, ambiguous issue in which my opinion keeps evolving. Regardless, it seems that the primary legal issue is whether or not it was right to arriest Gates (regardless of whether or not he was arrested in his home or outside of his home). I haven't decided. I probably won't ever really know the answer. There is enough gray area here for two people to have different conclusions both based on rational analysis.

I have decided that I don't think the cop treated Gates differently because Gates is black. But that's just my personal, quite possibly wrong, conclusion based on limited information. As Maurile indicated, only Gates really knows that.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I'm talking about your agreement with the prior poster that the issue is whether you should be arrested for being a jerk to a cop in your house.

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but I'm not sure it's important. And if I've changed my mind in this thread, that's because this is a strange, ambiguous issue in which my opinion keeps evolving. Regardless, it seems that the primary legal issue is whether or not it was right to arriest Gates (regardless of whether or not he was arrested in his home or outside of his home). I haven't decided. I probably won't ever really know the answer. There is enough gray area here for two people to have different conclusions both based on rational analysis.

I have decided that I don't think the cop treated Gates differently because Gates is black. But that's just my personal, quite possibly wrong, conclusion based on limited information. As Maurile indicated, only Gates really knows that.

My only question is whether or not Gates was a risk to the public. If not, the cop's only reason for arresting him is because his ego was hurt. Since I have a very hard time seeing the short old-man Gates as a threat to the public and a much easier time seeing cops as often being over juiced ego maniacs, I will assume the latter.

 

[Christo]

He was not charged with disturbing the peace. (Which is another obvious difference with the radio example.)

And as I stated before, under Mass law, 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.

Creating the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by engaging in tumultuous behavior is a violation. Playing your radio too loud and yelling at a cop risks public annoyance. Gates violated the statute whether or not you want to address the substance of my argument.

 

[Christo]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

 

[Christo]

My only question is whether or not Gates was a risk to the public. If not, the cop's only reason for arresting him is because his ego was hurt. Since I have a very hard time seeing the short old-man Gates as a threat to the public and a much easier time seeing cops as often being over juiced ego maniacs, I will assume the latter.

What do you mean by a risk to the public?

 

[timschochet]

Just got up, and it appears that I missed a whole night of ridiculous posts, led by Christo who again does not know what he's talking about. Gates was not arrested for disturbing the peace, but for disorderly conduct. The charges were dropped because the charges were bogus. The charges were bogus because Gates was not in public.

It really is a very simple situation: the police were 100% wrong. The only reason the police deny they were wrong is because (a) Gates charged them with racism, (b) the President called them stupid. In such a situation, police are always going to present a unified front in defense of their actions. And conservatives here and everywhere else are going to rally to their defense, even if it stretches logic to the limit. If this affair had not been publicized, the police would have already apologized to Professor Gates, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

He was not charged with disturbing the peace. (Which is another obvious difference with the radio example.)

And as I stated before, under Mass law, 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.

Creating the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by engaging in tumultuous behavior is a violation. Playing your radio too loud and yelling at a cop risks public annoyance. Gates violated the statute whether or not you want to address the substance of my argument.

How did Gates do any of these things?

 

[timschochet]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

He was on his front porch. Why do you persist in this absurd argument?

 

[Gigantomachia]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

So your front porch is public property?Sweet, who wants to camp on Christo's front yard with me???

 

[Christo]

Just got up, and it appears that I missed a whole night of ridiculous posts, led by Christo who again does not know what he's talking about. Gates was not arrested for disturbing the peace, but for disorderly conduct.

In Mass. disturbing the peace is disorderly conduct.

Disorderly Conduct

Disorderly conduct is a broad term used to describe conduct likely to lead to a disturbance of the public peace or that offends public decency. It is one of the most common offenses in the United States, as it is often used as a "catch-all" charge by the police to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others, even if they do not present serious public danger.

Examples of Disorderly Conduct

Nearly every social offense can be classified as a disorderly conduct; however, each state has its own set of disorderly conduct laws, which vary to some degree. Following is a list of the most common acts that may result in disorderly conducts charges:

* Loitering

* Public drunkenness

* Disturbing of the peace

* Blocking public ways

* Fighting in a public place

* Use of obscene or abusive language in public

* Making verbal threats

* Participating in a riot

* Causing loud noise

http://www.personalinjurylegalgroup.com/cr...rderly-conduct/But you just keep going like you know what you're talking about.

 

[Christo]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

He was on his front porch. Why do you persist in this absurd argument?

If you are on your porch you are in public.

 

[Gigantomachia]

My only question is whether or not Gates was a risk to the public. If not, the cop's only reason for arresting him is because his ego was hurt. Since I have a very hard time seeing the short old-man Gates as a threat to the public and a much easier time seeing cops as often being over juiced ego maniacs, I will assume the latter.

What do you mean by a risk to the public?

Unless he was an imminent risk to others, which no one seems to claim he was, every time I have been too loud with music or parties the cops always ask me to turn it down, they have never arrested me because I was being loud. Seems like a warning was about as much as was needed. The cop was just butt sore about being treated like a lowly public official. Oh wait . ..

 

[Christo]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

So your front porch is public property?Sweet, who wants to camp on Christo's front yard with me???

In public = open to the view of all. He may have been on his property but he was "in public."

 

[Gigantomachia]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

He was on his front porch. Why do you persist in this absurd argument?

If you are on your porch you are in public.

Seriously?

 

[Gigantomachia]

That is correct. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which by legal definition can only occur in public; hence one of the many reasons they dropped the charges.

He was in public.

So your front porch is public property?Sweet, who wants to camp on Christo's front yard with me???

In public = open to the view of all. He may have been on his property but he was "in public."

So in my house at night with the shades open, i.e., anyone can see in = my house is public.Far out.

 

[Christo]

My only question is whether or not Gates was a risk to the public. If not, the cop's only reason for arresting him is because his ego was hurt. Since I have a very hard time seeing the short old-man Gates as a threat to the public and a much easier time seeing cops as often being over juiced ego maniacs, I will assume the latter.

What do you mean by a risk to the public?

Unless he was an imminent risk to others, which no one seems to claim he was, every time I have been too loud with music or parties the cops always ask me to turn it down, they have never arrested me because I was being loud. Seems like a warning was about as much as was needed. The cop was just butt sore about being treated like a lowly public official. Oh wait . ..

He was warned. He kept yelling. If you'd refused to turn down your stereo you'd have been arrested.