Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Well, sometimes charges are dropped because there's no evidence. If he was being such a disturbance, shouldn't there be some evidentiary proof of this? Neighbors, witnessing his behavior? The other police officer at the scene? Passersby? There are even photos of the arrest. Who knows--maybe there's even a video! If he was that big of a disturbance, shouldn't they be able to meet what must be a fairly lax legal standard of proof for that particular crime?
I'm guessing that whoever reviewed the file judged that Gates' reaction would be found to be in keeping with the context and circumstances he was placed under. My feeling is that rather than preparing their case against Gates, the Cambridge police department is now preparing their own defense in a lawsuit against them. Just a guess, though.
|
Two things. The cops responded to a disturbance that was called in. Its not their fault that Gates' house was the reported place.
Secondly, what exactly warranted the response by Gates? The cops came to his house, LIKE THEY WERE ORDERED TO DO, and told him about the reported break-in. If Gates would have respectfully shown the cops ID, told him he was the owner, and explained why someone might have reported a possible break-in(I dropped my keys, and had to fool around with the lock a bit)....none of this would have happened. But he didn't.
And he ended up at the police station for 4 hours until the cops had everything sorted out.
The only problem I had here with the actions of the cops, is that they obviously didn't do a background check on the owner of the house. Or, whoever dispatched them didn't do a background check either. Otherwise, far as I'm concerned, they did what they were supposed to do.
God forbid there had been a break-in, or if they hadn't asked whoever answered the door for ID, you'd say the cops didn't properly investigate and do THEIR JOB.
You can't have it both ways.