Housing While Black (3 Viewers)

[3C's]

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?

Drinking beer in public (which includes your own porch if in view of the public) is illegal in many localities.http://www.nypress.com/article-18498-gut-i...-lir-upper.html

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/stora...rge-25401.shtml

The first week at a new school in a new city started out rough for Erin Hatch, a graduate student in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, when she and two friends were arrested for drinking beer on the front porch of their Dupont Circle home.

Almost two months later, things are looking up, after the city dropped the charges against Hatch earlier this month.

Hatch and her friends, another GW student and a visiting University of Texas student, said they were arrested without explanation and held for three hours for what Hatch and her attorneys say isn’t a crime.

“It is unconscionable that we sit here in the 20th century and police do not have a clear concept of what is public property versus what is private property,” said James Spears, Hatch’s attorney.

Since the students’ arrest in August, media outlets around the area have reported the case, focusing attention on the District’s “zero-tolerance” alcohol policy.

Hatch, Micah Rappaport and Mitch Pryor were charged in August with a misdemeanor for drinking in public at their home at 18th Street and Riggs Avenue. Rappaport and Pryor opted to pay a fine and not stand trial, but Hatch decided to appear in court.

She is represented by Spears and Tom Pahl of Gadsby & Hannah. Spears and Pahl took the case free of charge.

Hatch’s attorneys said she has not committed a crime because she was of legal age and on private property. The statute cited the case is “unconstitutionally vague,” Spears said.

At Hatch’s hearing Oct. 3, the District’s Corporation Counsel surprised the defense by dropping all charges.

“We appreciate it,” Spears said of the city’s decision to drop the charges against Hatch. “But this still left Ms. Hatch in legal limbo, which we think is constitutionally unconscionable.”

Hatch’s attorneys asked that Hatch’s record be sealed, but the Corporation Counsel indicated that it was unwilling to do so, Spears said.

“The Judge encouraged us to file a motion. He would be very interested in examining (the Corporation Counsel’s) response,” Spears said.

Anthony Gagliardi, the attorney who is prosecuting Hatch, refused to comment on the case.

The recent media attention to the students’ case may have been an impetus for the city to drop the charges, Hatch said.

Hatch’s case sparked attention from local media including Channel 7 News, radio station WHFS’s call-in show, National Public Radio’s Derek McGinty show, The InTowner and the District’s City Paper.

“It’s not our view that intoxication is what we support; that’s not what it’s about,” Spears said. “It’s about the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy of the Metropolitan Police Department. It’s not ‘zero-tolerance’ but ‘zero-intelligence.’ ”

Spears said police are not aware which porches are private property and which are public, and thus practice a “make it up as you go” policy.

However, officers interviewed said porches may be private property, but that might not necessarily stop what’s going on them from being illegal.

MPD Officer Sam Brown of the First District police service area defined the area “from your front door seal to your back door seal” as private property. A front porch is private if it is completely closed and screened-in so that people on the street cannot see what you’re doing, Brown said.

Officer D. Harris of the Fourth District said it also may depend on the police district. In his district, he said, someone “next to the sidewalk can be arrested”

“It’s against the law to drink in public,” he said. “If you are in your backyard having a barbecue that is fine, but once you are in the front and can be seen, you may be arrested.”

 

[Parrothead]

Once in general, when I asserted racism. Once to Christo, for trying to make an assumption about his world view. As Winston Churchill said, "Consistency is the bugbear of small minds." I think it's important to be consistent about your ideals.

tim, I appreciate your willingness to change your mind when presented with new facts. Or new arguments. Or based on sitting back and reflecting. it's an admirable trait.on the flip side, at times you assert your views VERY strongly, only to backtrack later when other people repeatedly lay out arguments against your view.

others have mentioned this before. what do you take from this?

perhaps this thread is a TEACHABLE MOMENT for our friend Tim...

 

[timschochet]

Once in general, when I asserted racism. Once to Christo, for trying to make an assumption about his world view. As Winston Churchill said, "Consistency is the bugbear of small minds." I think it's important to be consistent about your ideals.

tim, I appreciate your willingness to change your mind when presented with new facts. Or new arguments. Or based on sitting back and reflecting. it's an admirable trait.on the flip side, at times you assert your views VERY strongly, only to backtrack later when other people repeatedly lay out arguments against your view.others have mentioned this before. what do you take from this?

Sure I'm a little at fault for this. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I asserted my views strongly in response to other people asserting their views strongly. It pisses me off that whenever these Black/White issues occur with the police, there are conservatives here and elsewhere who are always on the side of the police to begin with, and they stay there, no matter what the facts. So I get excited and I express my opinion. But I like to be fair: when someone makes either a good argument that I hadn't thought of, or introduces facts that I am unaware of, then I acknowledge it, and sometimes I change my mind.I enjoy learning, and getting deeper into an issue. I'm not trying to win any contest here. I realize that my stridency, plus my change of position at times, makes some people here mock me or think I'm a fool or crazy. So be it. If a greater truth is somehow revealed through intense discussion, then I consider that a positive. I enjoy talking with everyone here, even those who enjoy berating me the most. (Especially if it's funny.) Most people have something worthy to contribute.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Once in general, when I asserted racism. Once to Christo, for trying to make an assumption about his world view. As Winston Churchill said, "Consistency is the bugbear of small minds." I think it's important to be consistent about your ideals.

tim, I appreciate your willingness to change your mind when presented with new facts. Or new arguments. Or based on sitting back and reflecting. it's an admirable trait.on the flip side, at times you assert your views VERY strongly, only to backtrack later when other people repeatedly lay out arguments against your view.others have mentioned this before. what do you take from this?

Sure I'm a little at fault for this. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I asserted my views strongly in response to other people asserting their views strongly. It pisses me off that whenever these Black/White issues occur with the police, there are conservatives here and elsewhere who are always on the side of the police to begin with, and they stay there, no matter what the facts. So I get excited and I express my opinion. But I like to be fair: when someone makes either a good argument that I hadn't thought of, or introduces facts that I am unaware of, then I acknowledge it, and sometimes I change my mind.I enjoy learning, and getting deeper into an issue. I'm not trying to win any contest here. I realize that my stridency, plus my change of position at times, makes some people here mock me or think I'm a fool or crazy. So be it. If a greater truth is somehow revealed through intense discussion, then I consider that a positive. I enjoy talking with everyone here, even those who enjoy berating me the most. (Especially if it's funny.) Most people have something worthy to contribute.

Fair enough.

 

[kutta]

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.

Don't you mean that only the cop knows? How would Gates know?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

 

[R 2 D 2]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

The lady who placed the call works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine.Gates was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. His driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

The lady who placed the call works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine.Gates was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. His driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.

If I ever decide to rob a house, I'll make sure to wear a blazer so no one will suspect me.

 

[flapgreen]

I'm pretty happy about all of this. Nice job, Prof.

 

[3C's]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

The lady who placed the call works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine.Gates was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. His driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.

If I ever decide to rob a house, I'll make sure to wear a blazer so no one will suspect me.

Don't forget to bring along a friend in a suit. Maybe he can carry some bags to stuff #### in too.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

The lady who placed the call works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine.Gates was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. His driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.

If I ever decide to rob a house, I'll make sure to wear a blazer so no one will suspect me.

Don't forget the important part, getting a PhD and holding a professorship at Harvard.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Is it pretty obvious to most people that the lady next door probably wouldn't have called the cops if some uptight old white dude and his chauffeur were trying to get into the house, all the while a ####### limo is parked in front of the house?This lady needs to relax and look around before she starts calling the cops every time some black dude comes into her neighborhood.

Way to come into the thread and be completely clueless.

The lady who placed the call works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine.Gates was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. His driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.

If I ever decide to rob a house, I'll make sure to wear a blazer so no one will suspect me.

Don't forget the important part, getting a PhD and holding a professorship at Harvard.

Can you tell this sort of thing from outward appearance?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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

 

[PatsWillWin]

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

They're not that kind of people.

 

[timschochet]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

 

[PatsWillWin]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Exhibit A.

 

[ICON211]

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

Apparently that is not really even the issue. Even if this was not a case of racial profiling, because of past police misconduct, no matter what happened in this specific case, the professor had the right say whatever he wanted to the cop and not follow his requests.

 

[PatsWillWin]

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

Apparently that is not really even the issue. Even if this was not a case of racial profiling, because of past police misconduct, no matter what happened in this specific case, the professor had the right say whatever he wanted to the cop and not follow his requests.

MORE! MORE!

 

[RCon]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

 

[PatsWillWin]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

This would only be a rational explanation if the perp wasn't black.

 

[timschochet]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

I don't think it's rational. I admit it's certainly a possibility. Earlier in this thread, I listed two possibilities, both irrational:1. Uppity Black man.

2. Being rude to the cop.

In neither case should Gates have been arrested. If I had to guess, I would lean towards #2, though it's possible that even if #2 was at the forefront of Crowley's mind, subconciously #1 was there as well; perhaps he would have behaved differently towards an angry white elderly professor. Who knows?

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

 

[David Yudkin]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

People get uppity with the police all the time, and if you start showing up the cops they are going to haul you back to HQ. That's the way of the world, it has nothing to do whether you are black, white, green, or purple.I think some people are missing out on this fact, as everything that led up to Gates' actions would not have been illegal or worthy of an arrest. But from what I have heard/seen, the cop in question gave Gates multiple warnings to calm down and answer his questions and Gates initially refused and then started sporting an attitude.Another thing people are playing Monday morning quarterback on is that on all calls the police DON'T KNOW what the situation is, who the people are, whether it's a homeowner or a guy with a shotgun, etc. IMO, the officer in question was trying to get to that and Gates impeded that process. It's easy for us after the fact to know what happened, but in real time it's not as easy.Massachusetts also has some weird laws and provisos that give the police more wiggle room. For example, in Massachusetts (post 9/11), anyone riding in a vehicle needs to provide identification if asked by the police (even passengers) or the police have a right to haul you in to the station and start a background check to prove your identity. It doesn't normally happen, but that's the letter of the law statute that they have in Massachusetts.IMO, if Gates just answered the basic questions when the police arrived and did not lose his cool, none of this would have happened and it would have been over and done in about two minutes. If any of us had avoided the questions and copped and attitude, we would have been taken away as well.I write it up as one big misunderstanding. The police don't really have anything with teeth to charge Gates with and they also didn't want to drag out the media firestorm and risk a lawsuit of nickel and dime type stuff. No harm, no foul, move on. But because Gates is black, suddenly all of law enforcement is looking for excuses to cart away minorities.

 

[Christo]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

I don't think it's rational. I admit it's certainly a possibility. Earlier in this thread, I listed two possibilities, both irrational:1. Uppity Black man.

2. Being rude to the cop.

You're forgetting disorderly conduct.

 

[RCon]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

I don't think it's rational. I admit it's certainly a possibility. Earlier in this thread, I listed two possibilities, both irrational:1. Uppity Black man.

2. Being rude to the cop.

In neither case should Gates have been arrested. If I had to guess, I would lean towards #2, though it's possible that even if #2 was at the forefront of Crowley's mind, subconciously #1 was there as well; perhaps he would have behaved differently towards an angry white elderly professor. Who knows?

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[timschochet]

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence?We have the policeman's story. We have the police report, which is a rehash of the policeman's story. We have other policemen and witnesses who, once Crowley and Gates were outside confirm Crowley's account. And we have Gates' account. Is there something I'm missing?

Again, I have my doubts that racism was a factor. But nothing reported so far makes me dismiss it entirely.

 

[Christo]

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article timmy posted to support his position a few pages back? It actually justified Gates' reaction merely upon the suppositition that race "maybe" a factor. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who uses that type of reasoning.

 

[PatsWillWin]

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article timmy posted to support his position a few pages back? It actually justified Gates' reaction merely upon the suppositition that race "maybe" a factor. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who uses that type of reasoning.

This is why I stopped coming to this thread 30 pages ago until this morning. Tim already admitted that he wants there to be racism here. There's no point discussing this with people like that.

 

[timschochet]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

I don't think it's rational. I admit it's certainly a possibility. Earlier in this thread, I listed two possibilities, both irrational:1. Uppity Black man.

2. Being rude to the cop.

You're forgetting disorderly conduct.

No, I'm not. That's an excuse, not a legitimate reason, IMO. And we don't need to rehash all of our previous arguments about it. You have a fine legal mind and you are able to produce legal definitions that can justify the arrest. I won't debate these with you. My answer remains: the charges were dropped.

 

[timschochet]

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article timmy posted to support his position a few pages back? It actually justified Gates' reaction merely upon the suppositition that race "maybe" a factor. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who uses that type of reasoning.

I don't think that article justified Gates' reaction. Honestly, I don't think Gates' reaction CAN be justified. I think it helped explain the source of Gates' irrationality, and I believe that's important for us to understand. But make no mistake, Gates was irrational.

 

[Bogeys]

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence?We have the policeman's story. We have the police report, which is a rehash of the policeman's story. We have other policemen and witnesses who, once Crowley and Gates were outside confirm Crowley's account. And we have Gates' account. Is there something I'm missing?

Again, I have my doubts that racism was a factor. But nothing reported so far makes me dismiss it entirely.

So the only one that is confirmed to be wrong about what happened (even just the outside of the house part) is the one who's statement your placing your faith in? Every witness account agrees with what the officer says and disagrees with Gate's account, so you would have to believe everyone in this situation was lying except for Gates. Were you on the second OJ jury?

 

[pollardsvision]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Good buzzword.

 

[timschochet]

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence?We have the policeman's story. We have the police report, which is a rehash of the policeman's story. We have other policemen and witnesses who, once Crowley and Gates were outside confirm Crowley's account. And we have Gates' account. Is there something I'm missing?

Again, I have my doubts that racism was a factor. But nothing reported so far makes me dismiss it entirely.

So the only one that is confirmed to be wrong about what happened (even just the outside of the house part) is the one who's statement your placing your faith in? Every witness account agrees with what the officer says and disagrees with Gate's account, so you would have to believe everyone in this situation was lying except for Gates. Were you on the second OJ jury?

When did I write that? I just wrote that Gates being irrational. I don't particularly believe Gates. That does not mean the arrest was justified. IMO, it was not.

It also does not mean that race was not a factor here. IMO, I'm simply not sure. I won't dismiss the possibility.

 

[RCon]

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence?We have the policeman's story. We have the police report, which is a rehash of the policeman's story. We have other policemen and witnesses who, once Crowley and Gates were outside confirm Crowley's account. And we have Gates' account. Is there something I'm missing?

Again, I have my doubts that racism was a factor. But nothing reported so far makes me dismiss it entirely.

You're asking someone to prove a negative. As far as the overwhelming evidence, it's there if you choose to look.* Cop is, by all accounts, a model officer.

* Cop has taught a racial profiling class for multiple years.

* Cop is alone with guy inside the house and does not arrest him.

* Guy is a ######## to the cop. As a general rule, we all know that this can, and often will, get you arrested.

* Cop warns guy to stop being a ########.

* The police report matches Crowley's story, which also matches the account from other policemen and witnesses, "once they were outside".

* He wasn't arrested until he got outside.

There is zero reason to believe race had anything to do with this, unless you like to reflexively believe that race always has to be the reason.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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

Why should we? I already admitted that I COULD be wrong about it. And in truth, I'm not nearly as sure about it as I was. But there remains the very real possibility that Gates was arrested for being an uppity Black man. After all, there's no rational reason for arresting him, so we have to come up with irrational reasons. This is as good as any other.

Seriously? Right or wrong and legally justifiable or not, being a ######## to a cop (especially after having been warned multiple times) is a very rational reason to get arrested. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is.

I don't think it's rational. I admit it's certainly a possibility. Earlier in this thread, I listed two possibilities, both irrational:1. Uppity Black man.

2. Being rude to the cop.

In neither case should Gates have been arrested. If I had to guess, I would lean towards #2, though it's possible that even if #2 was at the forefront of Crowley's mind, subconciously #1 was there as well; perhaps he would have behaved differently towards an angry white elderly professor. Who knows?

But I'm not going to just dismiss racism as a possibility, as KRS wants us to.

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand how people can be surprised by Tim's stance here. He identifies, with good reason, with oppressed minorities, whether it be race, religion, sexual orientation, intelligence, whatever, and he defends them as far as he possibly can. It's actually an admirable trait, if you can learn to stop defending them when the person really isn't being oppressed. I think he has trouble with that last part.

 

[Bogeys]

To paraphrase one of your own posts, it's amazing that you continue down this path despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence?We have the policeman's story. We have the police report, which is a rehash of the policeman's story. We have other policemen and witnesses who, once Crowley and Gates were outside confirm Crowley's account. And we have Gates' account. Is there something I'm missing?

Again, I have my doubts that racism was a factor. But nothing reported so far makes me dismiss it entirely.

So the only one that is confirmed to be wrong about what happened (even just the outside of the house part) is the one who's statement your placing your faith in? Every witness account agrees with what the officer says and disagrees with Gate's account, so you would have to believe everyone in this situation was lying except for Gates. Were you on the second OJ jury?

When did I write that? I just wrote that Gates being irrational. I don't particularly believe Gates. That does not mean the arrest was justified. IMO, it was not.

It also does not mean that race was not a factor here. IMO, I'm simply not sure. I won't dismiss the possibility.

The only one that says race is a factor is the person you are saying acted irrationally, given that how can you not be sure? Gate's perception may have been that race is involved, that doesn't mean he is correct. He has also lied about what happened when he said he couldn't have shouted because of his throat, yet everyone agrees he was shouting outside the house when the officer was warning him to calm down before he arrested him. You can say the arrest wasn't justified in your opinion and that is fine since it seems to be a judgement call type arrest, but to keep saying race is involved is to cry wolf and takes away from actual cases of racism.

 

[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.

 

[Nigel]

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

 

[Furious Styles]

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.

 

[Novice2]

Unsure on race....One may be Hispanic male not sure.

Oh My This really is a case of Housing while black.

 

[Harry Manback]

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.

 

[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.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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

Been waiting for this.

 

[Sweet J]

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.

You are a weird cat.

 

[jonessed]

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

Been waiting for this.

Should be some indication of exactly how loud Gates was screaming.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[Woogie Lee]

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.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

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?

 

[Harry Manback]

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.

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?

I would love to know this too.I know that MT is way smarter than me, but I really think other factors are clouding his judgment here, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[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.

 

[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.