Obama: Police who arrested professor 'acted stupidly'

[Scout]

The jerk makes a living on racism. It's no supriee that he pulled the race card right off.

That's why he made a scene and got arrested. Anyone trying to ease race relations would have have been (somewhat) pleasant.

I suppose it's racist that one of Gate's neighbors cared enough to call the police and report a break in, and it's equally racist that the police responded?

 

[Indy317]

Even if the police officer is lucky enough to have race removed from any analysis of his actions, he still is facing a big fat federal civil rights lawsuit for false arrest. It is not going to go well for the city and the officer.

Actually, lets be honest here. The officer won't lose anything, in fact, I bet he gains monetarily. Unless Gates goes for the jugular vein, this case will end up like all others: The city agrees to settle, no admission of wrong doing, the taxpayers (ie: Gates rich co-workers from Harvard) pay Gates. While some folks like Gates will never settle unless the officer pays, or won't settle for under x dollar amount, Gates may find himself as the only attorney who will represent him. Seriously, what attorney is going to take this case if Gates demands $50,000,000, that the officer be liable for enough to bankrupt him, etc. etc..?

What is missing from this thread, at least up to your message so far, is the actual _text_ of MA law on this subject. I was able to find a website posting with the text of the law and some court rulings. From my reading, you can tell MA courts are a lot more liberal than I believe Indiana courts would be. From some of the rulings, of which I didn't read the entire ruling, it appears that screaming and yelling in MA is OK. Usually when I see these kind of liberals rulings, the judges seem to believe the cops should just leave, which if I were a cop in MA, that is _exactly_ what I would do. In fact, I would keep some officer phone numbers handy of the judges who make these rulings and tell the complainants to call them instead!!! Remember, elections have consequences. Here is the link and text:

The Volokh Conspiracy - What is ?disorderly conduct? anyway?

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER.


Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses

Section 53. 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 may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):

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.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.
​

Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:

(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.
​

And here are some squibs:

Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.
​

And –

Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.
​

And –

Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.
​

Here is more from that case:
​

[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.​

​

​

The MA law is very, very hard to read in my opinion. It is obviously taken from the old English language. Indiana's law is much easier to read and understand. Anyways, from the looks of things, the cop really screwed up. I know that Indiana courts have ruled that you can swear at cops, though they really didn't rule on the volume of the swearing. The cursing of cops is protected speech. Sometimes it is the volume of which is the question. Do people have the right to scream at the top of their lungs to where it interferes with others?

Anyways, this case is why I _love_ Indiana. I can click on my digital recorder, put it in my pocket, then have a discussion with someone without telling them. It is all legal and protects me from malicious lies and such. The head of one of the police organizations/unions has made statements that such tapes exist in this case. If they do, they need to be made public. Even if Gates arrest was unlawful, I really wish to hear exactly how he act towards the officer, just so we can get to the truth of this matter.

 

[Indy317]

Mr. Obama would have come off more respectably if he attributed some of the blame to the way Mr. Gates reacted to the officer's presence.

Yesterday Obama did just that. Rush was playing it live and it was funny as hell. Rush is yelling how Obama just threw Gates "under the bus." Of course it wasn't like Obama did a complete 180, but he did say some things about how Gates likely could have acted a little more mature himself.

Taking race out of the question, once the cop realized that gates was the home owner he should have said "sorry for the misunderstanding, have a nice day" and gotten the off of the mans property. PERIOD.

I agree with the part about just leaving, likely while Gates is raving and ranting (if you believe the officers report). I don't agree with the officer having to appologize for doing his job. I don't say "sorry" unless I did wrong. I will sometimes appologize on behalf of my department if we did wrong, as that is the right thing to do. However, just because some complaint made a complaint that turned out not to be true doesn't mean I have to appologize for doing my job.

Im wondering how the cop even came into his house, was he invited in? did he have a right to enter the house because a robbery was reported? I surely wouldnt have let any cop inside without a warrant.

In this case, the cop had every right to make entry. He had a known complaintant. He even went as far as to personally meet with the complaintant. He noticed that there was damage to the door frame of the home. At that point, there is enough for the police to make entry. Think about it this way: If someone broke into a home and a loved one was being restrained upstairs, getting ready to be raped, would you want the officer to just take any person's word they find in the home that it is in fact their home? These cases are usually solved by either showing picture ID with the home's address, showing ID with the wrong address, but offering mail in the person's name, or even by glancing at the walks/shelves to see if there are any family photos with the person's picture in the home.

 

[Boilers]

Take the time to watch this video. Very good, and from the heart.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

 

[BloodEclipse]

Take the time to watch this video. Very good, and from the heart.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Nice to see the support for Crowley.

So what are we going to learn from Obama's teaching moment?
What is it that is going to be taught?

 

[Phil502]

Now Crowley has to have a beer with these two jack@sses poor guy.

Nice video, glas his fellow officers are showing support.