DeletedUser
How can you fairly judge whether he was just being a snob or not if...
How can you fairly judge whether he was just being a snob or not if...
DeletedUser
I think its fairly safe to conclude judging by the actions afterwards that the professor was not chastising the officers for their taste in shoes, haircuts, or social club preferences.
DeletedUser
I think its fairly safe to conclude judging by the actions afterwards that the professor was not chastising the officers for their taste in shoes, haircuts, or social club preferences.
That's taking a very narrow definition of the word "snob" and I think it's clear that Divest wasn't using the word in such a way. At least try to be honest in your arguments. Here is the original statement (bold added, mine).
DeletedUser
So what version of the definition of snob is the one that involves verbal abuse? Also, you should evaluate the word pompous and what it means. Combine that with snob, and I am only going by the words used, not some unknown alternative meaning.
We don't know the specifics of what was actually said, but we do know that it was and has been characterized as verbal attacks on the officer as being a racist. Please explain to me how that is characterized into pompous snobbery...
We don't know the specifics of what was actually said, but we do know that it was and has been characterized as verbal attacks on the officer as being a racist. Please explain to me how that is characterized into pompous snobbery...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Those tapes were already made public (how did you think I heard them?).
The 911 call demonstrated the person who made the call had no 'obviously' racial motivation. There was nothing in the police dispatch, nor in the police calls made from the site, that indicated anything racially motivated. That does not rule out racial profiling, but it does weaken the argument. The rest, however, does everything to strengthen the argument of illegal arrest.
You could hear the professor in the background. He sounded agitated, but he was not loud, nor was there anything the professor said that could be construed as insulting (at least nothing caught on tape). The police officer indicated that the professor identified himself. While still inside the house with the professor, the police officer called in again indicating the professor provided ID and proceeded to read out the professor's name. Common sense would indicate the ID had his residence listed, so the police officer already identified that the professor was in his own home and it was at this time the police officer should have exited the property (this also refutes the claim made, by one of the officers, that the professor did not provide his ID - i.e., one of the police officers lied, an indication of guilt).
The earlier photo we provided shows the professor handcuffed as he is being walked out of his home by the arresting officer (Crowley). The officer is "inside" the house, behind the professor, and facing away from the inside of the house. This indicates he did not deem anything in the house as a threat. Either that, or he's just about the dumbest police sergeant in Massachusetts (this further refutes the claim made, by one of the officers, that they arrested the professor to protect him. Of course, this is further refuted by the fact they took him downtown, stripped him, booked him for disorderly conduct, and locked him up).
Legally, in Massachusetts, you cannot arrest someone for disorderly conduct on their own property (in our out of the house is irrelevant, although evidence indicates it was done within the home). You can only charge someone, with disorderly conduct, in a public place.
Really, how far do you want me to take this?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Evidence of a picture doesn't mean anything UNLESS he was actually in the house. If someone was to testify based on that picture, it wouldn't be allowed because it would call for speculation.
As for the law, you are absolutely wrong. Massachussetts law does not explicitly label a home as exempt of disorderly conduct. On the contrary-playing music too loud can result in this type of charge.
However-many lawyers are saying that arresting someone for disorderly conduct for SPEECH ALONE is a violation of the 1st Amendment rights. Some say obstruction could and would apply, others disagree.
Either way-this story is not, nor should the focus be about racism. It's the furthest thing from the picture.
DeletedUser
The photo clearly shows the police officer standing inside the house. Regardless, they are on the porch of his home, which is still in his house. No speculation required.
So then, you're going to tell me the house is a public place?
Well then, since Gates was already identified as the resident of that home, before any charges were put against him, the professor was not obstructing.
DeletedUser
Now we have to get into symantecs here.
The picture shows an officer in the doorway, and Gates on the front porch. Hardly conclusive or concrete evidence the arrest was made in the house. Gates may have been placed under arrest simply where he stood-and the officer had to maneuver in the doorway to escort him to the squad car.
A picture also doesn't take into any account the contextual circumstances around the event. How do you know they didn't step inside to retrieve needed personal effects? You don't-instead you assume and fabricate the story based off of a meaningless picture. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Henry_Gates_Porch_072109.jpg
Where did I claim it had to be a public place? That was your own assertion. You claimed that Mass. Law has exemptions to Disorderly Conduct if on the confines of private property-or your home as you put it.
Here is a decent summary of the law:
The picture shows an officer in the doorway, and Gates on the front porch. Hardly conclusive or concrete evidence the arrest was made in the house. Gates may have been placed under arrest simply where he stood-and the officer had to maneuver in the doorway to escort him to the squad car.
A picture also doesn't take into any account the contextual circumstances around the event. How do you know they didn't step inside to retrieve needed personal effects? You don't-instead you assume and fabricate the story based off of a meaningless picture. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Henry_Gates_Porch_072109.jpg
Where did I claim it had to be a public place? That was your own assertion. You claimed that Mass. Law has exemptions to Disorderly Conduct if on the confines of private property-or your home as you put it.
Here is a decent summary of the law:
Now, according to you, police officers could not do anything to people having a loud party per se at an unreasonable hour. Since private property is excluded from such laws, and my point to you is that is nothing short of a lie about what is actually written in the law.
Also-determining Gates is the resident does not conclude the investigation. Its just not that clear cut and dry for that regards.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Loud music without any other complaints would normally be considered disturbing the peace rather than disorderly conduct (unless the person had been told to turn it down and refused).
I'm not 100% sure that the laws are the same in Massachessetts as they are here, but I doubt they're a lot different.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
The problem I see there is that his language doesn't appear to have affected others until they went outside. The arresting officer has specifically said that he asked the professor to go outside (so he could arrest him.) What I've read (which doesn't always mean much the way things get changed from source to source) is that he was asked to go outside because the acoustics in the kitchen made it hard to communicate.
DeletedUser
Correct Artemis, and so far as I have read, their disturbing the peace is a subsection of the Disorderly Conduct portions of the law.
But thats neither here nor there-the main part I was getting at is that the law does not exclude private property.
But thats neither here nor there-the main part I was getting at is that the law does not exclude private property.
DeletedUser
if people would like I can send in some questions to were my mother works here is MA for a clearer picture. she works for a small law firm here in MA (I have worked with them on some small, none law, Jobs) and I can ask her to have her boss (and family friends) answer some of the questions on this matter.
DeletedUser
I guess I never completed my thought about the difference between disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. Again, I'm basing this on our laws, and Massachessetts law may be somewhat different.
Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor here, and you can be arrested, serve time in jail, etc. for it; however, disturbing the peace is a petty misdemeanor and the worst that can happen to you is a fine.
Examples would be:
You have a party in your home and play the music too loud. The neighbors get irritated and call the police. Possible outcomes are (among many other possiblilities!)
1. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You agree, turn it down and they leave.
a.) Nothing happens
b.) They end up getting called back later for the same thing . You will most likely receive a citation for it.
2. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You refuse and turn it up louder. It could be considered disorderly conduct because you do it knowing full well that it will disturb and probably anger others.
3. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You, or some of your guests, start yelling at them or the neighbors because of it. If done loud enough to be heard from outside the home, and things said could be expected to anger or disturb people outside, you can be charged with disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor here, and you can be arrested, serve time in jail, etc. for it; however, disturbing the peace is a petty misdemeanor and the worst that can happen to you is a fine.
Examples would be:
You have a party in your home and play the music too loud. The neighbors get irritated and call the police. Possible outcomes are (among many other possiblilities!)
1. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You agree, turn it down and they leave.
a.) Nothing happens
b.) They end up getting called back later for the same thing . You will most likely receive a citation for it.
2. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You refuse and turn it up louder. It could be considered disorderly conduct because you do it knowing full well that it will disturb and probably anger others.
3. The police come and ask you to be more quiet. You, or some of your guests, start yelling at them or the neighbors because of it. If done loud enough to be heard from outside the home, and things said could be expected to anger or disturb people outside, you can be charged with disorderly conduct.
DeletedUser
Here's where things get even more interesting -
The 911 call does not state race, does not indicate "two black men," or anything relating to blacks. In fact, she said she did not know, but thought one might have been hispanic, and both had "suitcases." The police dispatch also does not indicate anything about "two black men." Also, both the 911 and the dispatch state uncertainty about whether there was an actual break-in. And yet, Crowley's police report states the person who made the 911 call met him outside the house and told him she saw two black men, with "backpacks," breaking into the house.
And yes, you're right Artemis, it does very much seem as though Crowley tricked Gates out of the house. Gates was attempting to obtain the officer's information, repeatedly asking for it (verified by both Crowley's police report and that of Gates' statements. Crowley said they could discuss it outside. As soon as Gates exited the house and entered the porch, Crowley, who had already gone down the porch steps, went back up the porch steps and handcuffed Gates, arresting him (this, again, is confirmed by both Crowley's police report and that of Gates' comments).
Now, the police officer was required to provide his identification, and there is no indication he did (this is demonstrated by Gates repeatedly asking for the officer's identification and no indication in the police report that Crowley ever showed his identification). --- http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm
The volume of Gates voice can be heard in Crowley's calls to dispatch, and it was not even remotely loud. Gates, in fact, states he could not yell even if he wanted to because he was recovering from a bronchial infection or something of that nature (forgot the details to this). In Crowley's report, he states, "My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units." This really does not jive with either the calls Crowley already made to ECC, nor to the fact the other police officers were already outside. In other words, another lie.
His police report also clearly shows that Crowley failed to provide his identification when Gates requested it, with Crowley stating, "When Gates asked me a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." So, he never provided the identification and then he baited Gates out of the house.
His police report also conflicts with an interview he did on a conservative radio talk show. In the police report, he stated, "As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him." And yet, in the radio, he stated that Gates kept demanding his identity (which somehow differs from identification in Crowley's warped mind), and that Gates followed him onto the porch continuing to demand, and Crowley told him that he had already told him his identity twice already, at which point he arrested Gates when Gates attempted to get the information from one of the other officers that was standing on the porch. Hoo boy... so which story is it?
And we continue --- "Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence, as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside of the residence, in the view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly." And yet he directed Gates to follow him outside to continue the discussion, Crowley was just then descending the stairs to the sidewalk, and he had still failed to provide the identification that he is required to provide and that these few moments as he descended the stairs was sufficient to garner him a threat of disorderly conduct (which is not corroborated by the other police officer's report, btw).
I also think it's outrageous to state that Gates was being disorderly, and the cause of the passersby's distress, or more aptly, according to Crowley's report, "These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed."
Crowley's own police report indicates, "When I left the residence, I noted there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, Ms Walen and at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence." So, the mere fact that there were several police cars, and accompanying officers (Cambridge and Campus) standing on the sidewalk had nothing to do with the passers-by's surprise and alarm. As if, somehow, so many police officers wouldn't be the reason they stopped and took notice. Please...
Look, i am trying to give this officer the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't have any doubts.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/07/custom_1248125870601_gatesreportfull1.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/07/custom_1248125891083_gatesreportfull2.jpg
The 911 call does not state race, does not indicate "two black men," or anything relating to blacks. In fact, she said she did not know, but thought one might have been hispanic, and both had "suitcases." The police dispatch also does not indicate anything about "two black men." Also, both the 911 and the dispatch state uncertainty about whether there was an actual break-in. And yet, Crowley's police report states the person who made the 911 call met him outside the house and told him she saw two black men, with "backpacks," breaking into the house.
And yes, you're right Artemis, it does very much seem as though Crowley tricked Gates out of the house. Gates was attempting to obtain the officer's information, repeatedly asking for it (verified by both Crowley's police report and that of Gates' statements. Crowley said they could discuss it outside. As soon as Gates exited the house and entered the porch, Crowley, who had already gone down the porch steps, went back up the porch steps and handcuffed Gates, arresting him (this, again, is confirmed by both Crowley's police report and that of Gates' comments).
Now, the police officer was required to provide his identification, and there is no indication he did (this is demonstrated by Gates repeatedly asking for the officer's identification and no indication in the police report that Crowley ever showed his identification). --- http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm
The volume of Gates voice can be heard in Crowley's calls to dispatch, and it was not even remotely loud. Gates, in fact, states he could not yell even if he wanted to because he was recovering from a bronchial infection or something of that nature (forgot the details to this). In Crowley's report, he states, "My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units." This really does not jive with either the calls Crowley already made to ECC, nor to the fact the other police officers were already outside. In other words, another lie.
His police report also clearly shows that Crowley failed to provide his identification when Gates requested it, with Crowley stating, "When Gates asked me a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." So, he never provided the identification and then he baited Gates out of the house.
His police report also conflicts with an interview he did on a conservative radio talk show. In the police report, he stated, "As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him." And yet, in the radio, he stated that Gates kept demanding his identity (which somehow differs from identification in Crowley's warped mind), and that Gates followed him onto the porch continuing to demand, and Crowley told him that he had already told him his identity twice already, at which point he arrested Gates when Gates attempted to get the information from one of the other officers that was standing on the porch. Hoo boy... so which story is it?
And we continue --- "Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence, as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside of the residence, in the view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly." And yet he directed Gates to follow him outside to continue the discussion, Crowley was just then descending the stairs to the sidewalk, and he had still failed to provide the identification that he is required to provide and that these few moments as he descended the stairs was sufficient to garner him a threat of disorderly conduct (which is not corroborated by the other police officer's report, btw).
I also think it's outrageous to state that Gates was being disorderly, and the cause of the passersby's distress, or more aptly, according to Crowley's report, "These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed."
Crowley's own police report indicates, "When I left the residence, I noted there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, Ms Walen and at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence." So, the mere fact that there were several police cars, and accompanying officers (Cambridge and Campus) standing on the sidewalk had nothing to do with the passers-by's surprise and alarm. As if, somehow, so many police officers wouldn't be the reason they stopped and took notice. Please...
Look, i am trying to give this officer the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't have any doubts.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/07/custom_1248125870601_gatesreportfull1.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/07/custom_1248125891083_gatesreportfull2.jpg
DeletedUser
The question comes down to a few things at this point.
Was this a racially motive action? OR was it simply a case of a violation of POP?
There are 3 laws where the language in them is skeptical and often abused by a police officer:
-Obstruction
-Disorderly Conduct
-Disturbing the Peace
POP is an acronym for Pissed Off Policeman. A buddy of mine was trying to get his dog that had run off. He comes to an intersection where a traffic cop directs him the opposite way from which his dog ran. He rolls down his window, tried to explain-and the officer rather rudely told him to move the other way. Frustrated, my friend flicked the officer off, then proceded to get arrested for Disorderly Conduct.
In this situation, he ended up paying a fine and had the misdemeanor dropped. Courts don't just let you walk away really as long as there is substance to it.
Should that officer had arrested my friend? No. Should Gates have been arrested? I don't truly think so.
But I would tell Gates much the same that I told my friend, there are things we do, and things we wish we didn't do-and thats one of them.
Prejudices still exist-and the trend can go towards one race or another-including white. That is human nature. However-to go off on a racist tangent simply because the officer is white is rediculous.
Everyone has to be accountable and responsible for their actions, and Gates' actions were way out of line. If an officer responds to an incident, and the people at the scene act like Gates did-more times than not-they won't walk away unscathed.
Do they deserve to be arrested? No. But this case has not nor never has been about race except for someone who aims at using reverse racism to account for every unfortunate circumstance in his life-so long as white people are present.
That is as ignorant and no different than actual racism.
Was this a racially motive action? OR was it simply a case of a violation of POP?
There are 3 laws where the language in them is skeptical and often abused by a police officer:
-Obstruction
-Disorderly Conduct
-Disturbing the Peace
POP is an acronym for Pissed Off Policeman. A buddy of mine was trying to get his dog that had run off. He comes to an intersection where a traffic cop directs him the opposite way from which his dog ran. He rolls down his window, tried to explain-and the officer rather rudely told him to move the other way. Frustrated, my friend flicked the officer off, then proceded to get arrested for Disorderly Conduct.
In this situation, he ended up paying a fine and had the misdemeanor dropped. Courts don't just let you walk away really as long as there is substance to it.
Should that officer had arrested my friend? No. Should Gates have been arrested? I don't truly think so.
But I would tell Gates much the same that I told my friend, there are things we do, and things we wish we didn't do-and thats one of them.
Prejudices still exist-and the trend can go towards one race or another-including white. That is human nature. However-to go off on a racist tangent simply because the officer is white is rediculous.
Everyone has to be accountable and responsible for their actions, and Gates' actions were way out of line. If an officer responds to an incident, and the people at the scene act like Gates did-more times than not-they won't walk away unscathed.
Do they deserve to be arrested? No. But this case has not nor never has been about race except for someone who aims at using reverse racism to account for every unfortunate circumstance in his life-so long as white people are present.
That is as ignorant and no different than actual racism.
DeletedUser
After reading the report I'd have to say that Gates deserved what he got. He was very uncooperative and very loud and accusing a person of being racist when all they are doing is trying to find out the facts is never a good idea. I still say the one with the racist problem is the professor.
DeletedUser
He produced his college ID and that does not list his residence for common sense reasons. I told you there was audio available,Hellstromm.
Also, could u give us some sources of where u heard all the tapes at???
Also, could u give us some sources of where u heard all the tapes at???
DeletedUser
Jim, Gates indicated he provided both his college ID and his driver's license. C'mon, really, you honestly think the professor would have handed only his college ID? What does that do for a police officer? Nothing. Also, there's one more problem with Crowley's claim of only receiving the college ID. When he called dispatch and indicated he had Gates' ID, he gave dispatch Gates' full name (first, middle and last), which is not provided on the college ID. Oop, there it is... yet one more lie.
DeletedUser
ok, but I still would like to know your sources for your FACTS, please.
DeletedUser
Are you sure Hellstromm-or more speculating and guessing. My college ID listed Full Name along with student number. Reason was for test integrity-left less doubt for all the John Smith's out there...
DeletedUser
I'm pretty sure college IDs have the full names ... students and professors.