theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 23, 2009 15:47:36 GMT -5
He also takes any money from his Christmas bonus and gives it to starving orphans. Oh, and he spends his summer vacations transporting food and water to Sudanese refugees. Wow. Gates picked on the wrong guy. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 23, 2009 15:48:46 GMT -5
You can only feasibly suggest this is a case of racial profiling if 1. don't understand anything about even the undisputed facts of this case or 2. don't have a clue what that term means.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 23, 2009 16:09:22 GMT -5
The most telling (and saddest) thing about the president's handling of this issue at last night's press conference was the clear revelation that when stripped of prepared texts and talkinf points, his off the cuff remarks tend to be, well, stupid. For a brilliant lawyer, law professor, community activist and President to say he did not have the facts and then judge the actions of the Police officer to have been stupid is, well, stupid.
Where oh where was his teleprompter for that sorry exchange?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 23, 2009 16:16:01 GMT -5
He's not "stupid", he just acted "stupidly". The distinction there should not be difficult for any reasonably intelligent person to understand, absent political biases. The comment was clearly made with respect to actions rather than one's being, as if to say that people - even very intelligent people - are capable of doing dumb things. Seems fairly straight forward. |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Jul 23, 2009 16:17:36 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 23, 2009 16:22:20 GMT -5
Dr. Huxtable is right.
You cannot say filth, flarn, stupid, flarn, flarn, filth in front of people!
;D
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 23, 2009 16:25:10 GMT -5
I didn't say no filth flarn filth flarn filth.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jul 23, 2009 16:48:49 GMT -5
You can only feasibly suggest this is a case of racial profiling if 1. don't understand anything about even the undisputed facts of this case or 2. don't have a clue what that term means. I don't think this was "racial profiling." Nor do I think the cop is "racist" (in the way most people use that term). I think this was one police officer's prejudice (a prejudice that is almost impossible to avoid, even in the newest of generations) producing an unjust outcome. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 23, 2009 17:37:58 GMT -5
I understand the distinction. I just think Obama is a stupidhead for opening his mouth after disclosing that he didn't know the facts and was biased in favor of Skip to my lou. It was dumb statement because it was off-message and his statement wasn't balanced. The arrest itself was stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 23, 2009 18:28:06 GMT -5
I'm very leery of cops acting above the law and I know how quickly many of them abuse their power in this way when pushed by civilians well-practiced in their liberties. I'm leaning towards the conclusion that the cops got a bit tired of Gates getting in their face even after they knew he wasn't breaking into the house, and that disturbs me a lot. Cops do not have a right not to be annoyed or even offended short of threatened. I think far too often they think they do have that right. Was thinking the same thing, who's the jerk who dropped a dime. I'm going to assume the cop did ignore Gates' demand for a badge #. I'm willing to believe the cops crossed the line here There is a very limited amount of verbal harranguing a cop will take from anyone before they arrest them, a lesser amount generally speaking than one would think is allowed by law. thebin: I agree with you on many of your libertarian stances, and I also have a problem, generally speaking, with disorderly conduct laws (FWIW, Failure to ID laws are equally abused). However, I disagree that law enforcement is some breakaway, rogue agent within our society, eager to trample Constitutional rights. Police officers are hired by and paid by government agencies whose leaders face democratic elections. In this sense, law enforcement answers directly to the community. In my experience, most officers show respect for everyone, including those they arrest. It seems this was the case here, even if the arrest was not completely necessary. I readily admit there are bad cops out there. I hate them as much as you do. I also admit that there is a disturbing "us vs. them" mentality among many cops, even some good ones. But to lump all police officers in the same category seems ridiculously unfair to me. It's like if I said all privileged white boys who are accused of rape are rapists. Will you at least admit one of your assumptions/conclusions is probably wrong? The police report states the officer gave his name to Gates multiple times. |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,853
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 23, 2009 19:55:16 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,911
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 23, 2009 20:55:16 GMT -5
An esteemed (i.e. anonymous) member of the Massachusetts legal establishment weights in:I have been a Massachusetts appellate lawyer for more than twenty years, and will attempt to outline relevant state law to you. This is a quick answer, and I will look at some more cases. ... The criminal prohibition against "disorderly conduct" can be found in Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, under a category that penalizes "crimes against chastitity, morality, decency and good order." It is penalized under Section 53, which provides fines and possible imprisonment for "Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure." I do not think you need to get far, if at all, into nuances of First Amendment law in order to discern that a "disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home. In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." In a 2008 case, the state's Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated "[t]he "public" element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant's action affects or is 'likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'" Id. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 23, 2009 21:27:56 GMT -5
Call me cynical. Let me first ask this: Does anyone think that in a few years the "Skip Gates incident" will be a watershed event that changes sentencing laws or police practices in the US, you know not in Cambridge but in the places it really, really matters? Didn't think so.
What happened here is the neighbor saw someone breaking into the house of a neighbor that hadn't been home. She called the police. When the cop showed up, at that point everyone was acting in the interest of Gates. Gates goes a little nuts, let's face it, and starts a unwarranted Editeding match with a cop which leads to an unwarranted arrest. A few hours later the charges are dropped.
Now if everyone acted outside a testosterone haze, there's no incident. As it stands Gates decided "Oh you're going to ask me for ID, well then I'm calling you a racist." Then the cop as another alpha male says "Oh, you're calling me racist, well you're under arrest." Bad incident.
But Skip Gates starting an incident with a cop that leads to an incovenient afternoon is not emblematic of actual injustices like racial profiling, police brutality, or inconsistent sentencing of minorities. Bottom line is the Skipster will sell more books and charge more for speeches. Cool for him. Big deal for everyone else.
This whole thing is a commercial break because people are sick of talking about health care on 24-hour news.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 23, 2009 23:16:51 GMT -5
An esteemed (i.e. anonymous) member of the Massachusetts legal establishment weights in:I have been a Massachusetts appellate lawyer for more than twenty years, and will attempt to outline relevant state law to you. This is a quick answer, and I will look at some more cases. ... The criminal prohibition against "disorderly conduct" can be found in Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, under a category that penalizes "crimes against chastitity, morality, decency and good order." It is penalized under Section 53, which provides fines and possible imprisonment for "Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure." I do not think you need to get far, if at all, into nuances of First Amendment law in order to discern that a "disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home. In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." In a 2008 case, the state's Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated "[t]he "public" element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant's action affects or is 'likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'" Id. Umm, except that it didn't occur in his house, at lease not most of it. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 23, 2009 23:24:48 GMT -5
An esteemed (i.e. anonymous) member of the Massachusetts legal establishment weights in:I have been a Massachusetts appellate lawyer for more than twenty years, and will attempt to outline relevant state law to you. This is a quick answer, and I will look at some more cases. ... The criminal prohibition against "disorderly conduct" can be found in Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, under a category that penalizes "crimes against chastitity, morality, decency and good order." It is penalized under Section 53, which provides fines and possible imprisonment for "Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure." I do not think you need to get far, if at all, into nuances of First Amendment law in order to discern that a "disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home. In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." In a 2008 case, the state's Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated "[t]he "public" element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant's action affects or is 'likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'" Id. Interesting post, and the question of legality seems to be lost in the political follow-up on racial profiling and whatever else. I skimmed through the police reports (not an attorney), and it struck me that there was room on both sides for improvement, but I was ultimately baffled by the police response. At no point did I understand why the police officer would have focused so intently on Gates given the possibility of another intruder, as reported by the neighbor, when there was limited reason to believe that Gates was a danger to himself, the police officer, or anyone else. The appearance of several back-up policemen - even from Cambridge - likewise seemed strange. In the end, I viewed the policeman as begging for Gates to err by attempting to coax him outside to continue the apparently loud dispute. There was not an "out" there for Crowley in what was admittedly an understandable misunderstanding. This may be standard issue, but the second police report (Figueroa), which focuses on the content of the Gates statements seems out of place given that he was not inciting violence. Calling a policeman racist is unwise but probably legal, so the need to dump those facts in a second police report caught me as a little too much. The other police report was stronger in the sense that it described the effect of the alleged yelling, which seems more on point as to disorderly conduct. Crowley struck me as a Joe the Plumber [sic] character. He will make some B-rate media appearances and sink back in the ether. Crowley, however, is stronger and more compelling in that he is not demonstrably a fraud but, rather, a loyal public servant. Regardless, I've just about had enough of the racial profiling debate in America. Everything is seen through the lens of racial profiling in these gray cases, and, if you stick around long enough, you will have argued on both sides of every issue. Many Republicans and even libertarians in this thread and elsewhere have taken up the cause of the policeman, who probably made a mistake but is deserving of no more attention than that accorded to any other police officer. This was not a massive FUBAR or scandal. However, it is stunning that some would support, after the fact, the arrest of an individual on his own property for disorderly conduct. The profiling crowd, on the other hand, grows tiresome, but perhaps the Revs. Sharpton/Jackson are fatigued from more pressing matters, such as the M. Jackson fallout and grave scandal in Illinois. I and others will find Gates annoying when he cashes in, but I certainly don't blame him, and he is as deserving as anyone else. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 24, 2009 0:15:44 GMT -5
Umm, except that it didn't occur in his house, at lease not most of it. That's not what the police report says. It details possibly at maximum 10-20 seconds of incident occurring outside - Gates never left the porch - and Crowley invited Gates to continue outside multiple times (entrapment?). The bulk of the incident and the bulk of what Crowley based the arrest on happened inside, and Crowley even admits to it in the report. I agree completely with GIGA, this was all testosterone, no logic. The comparisons to Joe the Plumber are ridiculous - I listened to Crowley's interview on WEEI this morning and he seemed pretty genuine and pretty sane and did not seem to have a desire for the spotlight other than to clear his name. You wonder how two intelligent people like Crowley and Gates (I've seen him on Colbert a few times) could get into such a ridiculous incident. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 24, 2009 0:33:32 GMT -5
Umm, except that it didn't occur in his house, at lease not most of it. That's not what the police report says. It details possibly at maximum 10-20 seconds of incident occurring outside - Gates never left the porch - and Crowley invited Gates to continue outside multiple times (entrapment?). The bulk of the incident and the bulk of what Crowley based the arrest on happened inside, and Crowley even admits to it in the report. No way it's entrapment. Entrapment occurs when a person would not have committed an illegal act but for the actions of a government agent. Inviting a person outside is not the same as inviting that person to commit an offense. And it doesn't matter where most of the incident occurred. If any of it occurred in a public place or had its intended effect in a public place, it's an offense. Not one Gates should have been arrested for, IMO, but an offense nonetheless. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 24, 2009 8:01:58 GMT -5
The only apt comparison to the Joe the Plumber situation is that both times Obama was off prompter and made stupid comments. Once on a rope line, and here at the end of his conference.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 24, 2009 8:18:41 GMT -5
"Many Republicans and even libertarians in this thread and elsewhere have taken up the cause of the policeman, who probably made a mistake but is deserving of no more attention than that accorded to any other police officer. This was not a massive FUBAR or scandal. However, it is stunning that some would support, after the fact, the arrest of an individual on his own property for disorderly conduct. "
The problem is that Gates immediately claimed racism - and that he used his full power to involve friends giving interviews to the Root and the Washington Post to attack someone who doesn't seem to be racist. Given the fact that people do suffer every day from racism, claiming it when it's not the case is serious (and it's more likely to make some people claim that people are "playing the race card" when a real situation does arise).
If a Congressman or actor had been arrested in similar circumstances where he pulled the "don't you know who I *am*" line and things escalated and he got arrested, even on his property, the Daily Show would have eviscerated him.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 24, 2009 8:50:09 GMT -5
And it doesn't matter where most of the incident occurred. If any of it occurred in a public place or had its intended effect in a public place, it's an offense. Not one Gates should have been arrested for, IMO, but an offense nonetheless. It's not clear that Gates' actions from inside were having their intended effect in a public place. Crowley called for backup, it's not clear from the report whether the 7 onlookers were because they were rubbernecking the police presence (Crowley called for backup) or they heard Gates from inside the house. Here's a decent Slate article on whether Gates met the criteria for disorderly : www.slate.com/id/2223379/ |
|
