Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
So having now read the actual police report, I can see why charges were dropped.
Here's what happened, by the police officer's own admission.
1. He asked Gates to step outside. Gates refused, as is his right when he is residing peacefully within his own home.
2. He asked Gates for ID. Gates complied.
3. The police officer, without establishing probably cause, entered a private residence without permission and without identifying himself and showing proper identification first.
4. Gates never left his own porch.
5. Gates' only crime was to call the guy a racist. Which, given that the guy immediately assumed Gates was a criminal upon seeing him inside the house, is at least understandable even if you don't feel that it's true.
|
Ok, here are the facts without the personal opinion added.
1.) Report of possible B&E at a neighbors residence.
2.) Cambridge police officer attended the complainants home. Complainant said there were two black men at the neighbors and she believe it was suspicous as one of the men was wedging on the door trying to pry it open.
3.) The officer observed a man on the foyer of the residence in question. The person in the doorway was a black man. (report was of two black men possibly breaking into the house).
4.) The officer requested the man to exit and speak with the officer.
5.) The man refused stating "I will not".
6.) The man demanded to know who the officer was, to which the officer replied "Sgt. Cowley of the Cambridge police). (Contrary to what IFF says that the officer never identified himself)
7.) The officer continued to explain why he was there. (A complaint of a B&E). To which subject reply was "why, because I am a black man in America?"
8.) Officer asked if anyone else was in the residence.
9.) Subject replied it was none of his business and accued the officer of being racist.
10.) Subject then picked up a phone and dialed someone.
At this point in time the officer still has not identifed the person in the house. The person fits the description of someone breaking into that house. The person is not cooperative and refuses to answer questions of the police.
11.) Officer heard subject on the phone state "get the chief, whats his name?" he continued to tell the person on the phone that he was dealing with a "racist officer" - (It appears at this time the officer went into the residence as subject would not provide answers)
12.) Subject stated that the officer had no idea who he was messing with.
13.) Officer requested ID from subject. Subject first refused to provide ID but then provided a Harvard ID card. (Usually a school ID tells you only that he is affiliated with that school, not where they live).
14.) Once officer learned he was affiliated with Harvard he requested the Harvard police.
15.) Officer was about to leave when GATES demanded officers name again. Officer tried to tell his name once again but was yelled over by GATES. GATES again threatened the officers saying he wasn't someone to mess with. (what does that mean, physically, politically?)
16.) The officer was leaving the house as he could not hear the radio with GATES yelling.
17.) Once outside there appeared to be a crowed that formed. Public and police officers.
18.) GATES was warned that his behavoir was becoming disorderly.
19.) GATES continued to be disorderly.
20.) GATES was warned again to "calm down" (not the phrase I would have used as this usually makes the person even more agitated)
21.) GATES continued on and was subsequently arrested for Disorderly conduct.
So, contrary to what IFF said. Gates refused to leave the house and answer questions which IFF states is his right. WRONG, the police are investigating a crime in progress, observe someone who fits the description of the possible criminal. They have the authority to demand questions and have suspects cooperate.
IFF says that GATES complied by providing ID. GATES did provide ID, we are not sure if the officer was satisfied with the ID, it does not mention in the report. The only remark is that the officer was led to believe he was the lawful resident of the home, this is not confirmation.
IFF states that the officer entered the home without cause and without providing ID. NOT according to the officers report. The officer identified himself and have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that an offence was taking place, thus he was authorized to enter the house to either confirm or negate his suspicions.
IFF states that GATES never left his porch. This is correct, however, he was bisplaying disorderly behavoir within a public palce out side of the house.
IFF states that GATES only crime was calling someone racist and that the officer immedially assumed that GATES was a criminal. Wrong and right. GATES was disorderly and broke the law. The officer DID assume that the man in the house was or could be a criminal as the man would not negate his own suspicion.
