Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Again, by your own admission, the definition of "disorderly" is vague. But the cops are expected to use the right judgement on when or when not to arrest people. It shouldn't be based on someone pissing you off. It should be based on protection of the public. In no way was this cop serving or protecting the public by making this arrest.

Read the report....and you might understand why he got arrested.

Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Almost everytime a story like this comes out it turns out that the person who was arrested started behaving like an ass. So stop being an ass and this would have ended right away.

If his house was being broken into for real would he want the police to show up and then have the criminal say "I own the house" and then have the police just leave?

The police need to have order while they are doing their job. They don't need people getting frustrated with them.

Did this guy thank the police officer for protecting his property?

You should watch the interview CNN did with Gates. It actually does answer a lot of your questions here.

Besides, he showed ID. Both sides agree that he satisfied the burden of proof that he lived there. The real question is why the police didn't just leave at that point.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Boy, if you can be arrested because you "refuse to calm down" while in your own house.... I'm going to start making a list of people I want arrested.

Gates followed the officer outside, and continued to yell at him, AFTER the situation had been cleared up.

He was warned TWICE, and then arrested.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You should watch the interview CNN did with Gates. It actually does answer a lot of your questions here.

Besides, he showed ID. Both sides agree that he satisfied the burden of proof that he lived there. The real question is why the police didn't just leave at that point.

Probably because Gates followed the officer outside and continued to act like a prick, 'in view of the public.'

They had grounds to arrest him.

[fatso]

I think I'll wait for Gates' report to be pdf'd and put on the web. That'll be my incontrovertible evidence.

[MelBridgeman]

It's kinda like the guy who doesn't believe in the moon landing...no matter what evidence or factual information, they will twist everything to try and prove their point, because for whatever reason they just can't admit to being wrong...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Read the report....and you might understand why he got arrested.

Stop pretending that I didn't read the report. You're better than that.

I might just as easily say this: stop being distracted by adjectives like "tumultuous" (which the officer is clearly using because of the wording of the statute) and read for the facts.

What was Gates' crime? Being a jerk? That's not a crime. Nor is saying "I'll speak with your mama outside"--though you bolded that as though it were somehow damning.

You know what would have solved the problem? Leaving. That would have fixed the problem, and we wouldn't even be talking about it. Instead, the officer turned around, remounted the steps to Gates' porch, and arrested a man whose only crime was yelling at him.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Gates followed the officer onto his own porch, and continued to yell at him, AFTER the situation had been cleared up.

He was warned TWICE, and then arrested.

Fixed your post. This is actually a pretty important distinction, given that the statute requires that Gates offer either a threat of violence or a threat of tumultuous behavior in a public place. By the officer's own admission, that never happened.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Stop pretending that I didn't read the report. You're better than that.

I might just as easily say this: stop being distracted by adjectives like "tumultuous" (which the officer is clearly using because of the wording of the statute) and read for the facts.

What was Gates' crime? Being a jerk? That's not a crime. Nor is saying "I'll speak with your mama outside"--though you bolded that as though it were somehow damning.

You know what would have solved the problem? Leaving. That would have fixed the problem, and we wouldn't even be talking about it. Instead, the officer turned around, remounted the steps to Gates' porch, and arrested a man whose only crime was yelling at him.

Again, this is what disorderly conduct is all about. Gates was warned twice about it as well.

Funny how you're so quick to say that just leaving would have solved anything, but you've never said that Gates shutting the hell up would have avoided a situation as well.

[missdpuck]

This thread is a pissing contest about a pissing contest.

But it is a worthwhile one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fixed your post. This is actually a pretty important distinction, given that the statute requires that Gates offer either a threat of violence or a threat of tumultuous behavior in a public place. By the officer's own admission, that never happened.

According to the report, in 'view of the public'....or all those people standing outside, the officer made the arrest.

Again, the 'disorderly conduct' charge is a bit vague, but Gates shouldn't have continued to be a prick about it, and the officers would have peacefully left.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's kinda like the guy who doesn't believe in the moon landing...no matter what evidence or factual information, they will twist everything to try and prove their point, because for whatever reason they just can't admit to being wrong...

It's kinda like the guy who can't read critically and assumes that what is in a police report is "evidence" or "factual information." And then cedes the ground of this argument, instead making an irrelevant comparison to a different argument that would be easier for him to win.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fixed your post. This is actually a pretty important distinction, given that the statute requires that Gates offer either a threat of violence or a threat of tumultuous behavior in a public place. By the officer's own admission, that never happened.

Why do you keep making stuff up? Count how many times the word tumultuous is used in the police report..then quote me where the office admitted he wasn't being tumultuous in a public place...the police report makes Gates look like an incoherent ass

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Stop pretending that I didn't read the report. You're better than that.

I might just as easily say this: stop being distracted by adjectives like "tumultuous" (which the officer is clearly using because of the wording of the statute) and read for the facts.

What was Gates' crime? Being a jerk? That's not a crime. Nor is saying "I'll speak with your mama outside"--though you bolded that as though it were somehow damning.

You know what would have solved the problem? Leaving. That would have fixed the problem, and we wouldn't even be talking about it. Instead, the officer turned around, remounted the steps to Gates' porch, and arrested a man whose only crime was yelling at him.

Agreed. Even assuming the report is 100% accurate, there is still no real reason to arrest the guy. The officer was leaving and should've just left. Its not his job to adjust bad attitudes, its to fight crimes.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's kinda like the guy who can't read critically and assumes that what is in a police report is "evidence" or "factual information." And then cedes the ground of this argument, instead making an irrelevant comparison to a different argument that would be easier for him to win.

Why would the cop make up the report....there were several freaking witenesses and cops..give me a break. So i should assume that Gates and his lawyers are telling the truth? You clearly can't see this objectively...and that is fine, you admire Gates, your sticking up for him..but come man..you really are tip toeing around some "facts".

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

but you've never said that Gates shutting the hell up would have avoided a situation as well.

Sure, I'll agree with that. But the burden of responsibility here is not on Gates to "shut the hell up." If he has an opinion, he has a right to express it, regardless of how much a police officer may not like hearing it.

If he committed a crime before dozens of witnesses, then why wasn't he charged? No-one seems to want to address that. Unless.... he didn't commit a crime, a fact that would be confirmed by the dozens of witnesses who were present.

The easiest way for this to become a non-issue would be for there to be solid evidentiary ground upon which Gates could be charged with disorderly conduct. If you have that, there's no issue, no public relations fiasco, nothing. So... why aren't they doing that?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Why would the cop make up the report....there were several freaking witenesses and cops..give me a break. So i should assume that Gates and his lawyers are telling the truth? You clearly can't see this objectively...and that is fine, you admire Gates, your sticking up for him..but come man..you really are tip toeing around some "facts".

I actually think Gates is an arrogant moron and an intellectual lightweight. But my opinion of his character is not important, and neither is yours. What is important is the facts. So tell me--using only facts--what crime did he commit? What probable cause did the officer have to enter his home without permission, and without showing ID? What proof is there that he committed any crime at all?

With all these "freaking witnesses and cops" present, proving that Gates was justifiably taken into custody should be easy for you. I expect your answer before I finish my sandwich. It has ham, tomatoes, lettuce and mustard. Very yummy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Why do you keep making stuff up? Count how many times the word tumultuous is used in the police report..then quote me where the office admitted he wasn't being tumultuous in a public place...the police report makes Gates look like an incoherent ass

Allow me to demonstrate how this works:

MelBridgeman is very tumultuous in the post quoted above. When he first entered this thread, he made his arguments in a tumultuous manner, and then argued tumultuously in spite of being tumultuously warned that if he tumultuously continued being tumultuous that I would get tumultuous on his ass.

See what I did there? According to you, I just created evidentiary ground upon which you could be arrested for public disturbance. Using the word doesn't make it so, though I'm guessing Officer Crowley wishes it did.

[JustAnotherGuy]

A few years back I had the police come to my front door. They said that a car that was opposite my garage had been received some minor damage. Since the car was right opposite my driveway he asked to look at my vehicles. I said sure, I opend the garage door and he walked around my two cars. Say nothing and said thank you very much. That was the end of it.

Why couldn't this guy have just handled it like that? The incident would have been over, long over by now.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

A few years back I had the police come to my front door. They said that a car that was opposite my garage had been received some minor damage. Since the car was right opposite my driveway he asked to look at my vehicles. I said sure, I opend the garage door and he walked around my two cars. Say nothing and said thank you very much. That was the end of it.

Why couldn't this guy have just handled it like that? The incident would have been over, long over by now.

Sure. He probably acted like a dick. But did he commit a crime?

There is a pretty major difference. Being a ###### isn't illegal. If it were, GM place on a hockey night would be a perfect opportunity for a sting operation.