Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Doesn't it say that Gates became belligerent?

It actually says "tumultuous." Which is a laughably funny way of trying to make the arrest line up with the wording of the relevant statute. But the relevant case law in Massachusetts pretty much defines "disorderly conduct" as "conduct designed to incite a riot," so the officer never had a leg to stand on.

I'm still wondering how you can call someone names "tumultuously." I'm guessing it involves the simultaneous use of some sort of weather-control machine.

EDIT: I should clarify. Nowhere in the report does Officer Crowley claim that Gates was violent or threatened violence, only that he was loud. That, along with liberal, often incorrect use of the term "tumultuous."

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I haven't read the report but some reports are reporting that it says that Gates became belligerent?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Please show me where in the police report it says that Gates was aggressive. Here, I'll help you, since it's still on my desktop: it doesn't, because you made it up. He offered no threat of violence to the officer. He just hurt the officer's feelings--and if you can't handle that, you shouldn't be a cop.

Fortunately, speech is still protected by the constitution. I hope for all our sakes that it remains so forever.

I would not hold your breath waiting for Mel to respond.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Please show me where in the police report it says that Gates was aggressive. Here, I'll help you, since it's still on my desktop: it doesn't, because you made it up. He offered no threat of violence to the officer. He just hurt the officer's feelings--and if you can't handle that, you shouldn't be a cop.

Fortunately, speech is still protected by the constitution. I hope for all our sakes that it remains so forever.

Agressive doesn't necessarily mean threats or violence...Look at the bigger picture, most people in this situation (regardless of race or religion for that matter) would handle this in a calm and collective manner and it would been done and over with, but instead of doing that Mr. Gates behaved aggresively.

When asked to step outside of the house, he responded with "No I won't" instead of obliging.

Then Gates asked him who he was - and the officer responded with his name and told him why he was there

That is when Gates opened the door and made the hint that the cop was there because he was "black" "Why because i am a black man in America"

Gates continued to YELL and accuse him of being a racist cop

The officer continued to tell him he was just responding to a call from a citizen

At that point Gates picked up the phone called someone wanting the chief because he was dealing with a racist cop and that the officer didnt know who he was missing with.

He also refused to show ID at first..

That my friend is called being aggresive and If you knew anything about Police training would certainly raise the eyebrows of any officer....He handled in very very very very poorly.

Again I am not suprised the officers was shocked by this behavior, as i am sure that most people would not handle this situation in this manner.

[Gozer]

But if the officer knew/figured out that Gates was just trying to sensationalize the situation then he took the worst possible course of action.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Agressive doesn't necessarily mean threats or violence...Look at the bigger picture, most people in this situation (regardless of race or religion for that matter) would handle this in a calm and collective manner and it would been done and over with, but instead of doing that Mr. Gates behaved aggresively.

When asked to step outside of the house, he responded with "No I won't" instead of obliging.

Then Gates asked him who he was - and the officer responded with his name and told him why he was there

That is when Gates opened the door and made the hint that the cop was there because he was "black" "Why because i am a black man in America"

Gates continued to YELL and accuse him of being a racist cop

The officer continued to tell him he was just responding to a call from a citizen

At that point Gates picked up the phone called someone wanting the chief because he was dealing with a racist cop and that the officer didnt know who he was missing with.

He also refused to show ID at first..

That my friend is called being aggresive and If you knew anything about Police training would certainly raise the eyebrows of any officer....He handled in very very very very poorly.

Again I am not suprised the officers was shocked by this behavior, as i am sure that most people would not handle this situation in this manner.

So... when asked to show me where in the police report officer Crowley claims that Gates was aggressive, you respond with:

1. He didn't step outside. (FYI--he's not required to)
2. He yelled.
3. He didn't show his ID.

One of two things is happening. Either you know that you were wrong, and are trying to muddy the waters, or you have no idea what "aggressive" means.

I'm guessing it's the first.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It actually says "tumultuous." Which is a laughably funny way of trying to make the arrest line up with the wording of the relevant statute. But the relevant case law in Massachusetts pretty much defines "disorderly conduct" as "conduct designed to incite a riot," so the officer never had a leg to stand on.

I'm still wondering how you can call someone names "tumultuously." I'm guessing it involves the simultaneous use of some sort of weather-control machine.

EDIT: I should clarify. Nowhere in the report does Officer Crowley claim that Gates was violent or threatened violence, only that he was loud. That, along with liberal, often incorrect use of the term "tumultuous."

I'm too lazy to go back to the original report but I believe it did state that Gates said to the officer something along the lines of you don't know who your dealing with... the officer stated he did not know what that meant. Also, watching the interview Gates gave on CNN, he also stated that he did feel the cop was profiling him and something along the lines of the cop couldn't stand a black man standing up for his rights, right in his face. now to me, that does sound aggressive.
And for the neighbor calling the cops, it states the Driver was trying to push open the door, not gates, so the neighbor was not profiling, she saw an unknown individual trying to enter her neighbors house.
Also, the cop should have followed Gates into the other room, had he been a burglar, perhaps he might have been trying to exit the house. Remember, this was before Gates produced any id.
Honestly, stop making this about race, it’s not.
And yes, I am a minority, so if you don’t agree with me it must be because you’re a racist.

[Gozer]

Monkeyman a minority?

*backs out of thread slowly*

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I'm too lazy to go back to the original report but I believe it did state that Gates said to the officer something along the lines of you don't know who your dealing with... the officer stated he did not know what that meant. Also, watching the interview Gates gave on CNN, he also stated that he did feel the cop was profiling him and something along the lines of the cop couldn't stand a black man standing up for his rights, right in his face. now to me, that does sound aggressive.
And for the neighbor calling the cops, it states the Driver was trying to push open the door, not gates, so the neighbor was not profiling, she saw an unknown individual trying to enter her neighbors house.
Also, the cop should have followed Gates into the other room, had he been a burglar, perhaps he might have been trying to exit the house. Remember, this was before Gates produced any id.
Honestly, stop making this about race, it’s not.
And yes, I am a minority, so if you don’t agree with me it must be because you’re a racist.

For you and me, this situation may not be about race. For Gates, it most certainly was. Don't forget that it is Gates' contention that he produced ID as quickly as he could, and that he was arrested immediately upon stepping onto the porch, with no explanation. It's one of the key differences between the police report and Gates' testimony. So--for Gates it's about race. Doesn't mean it has to be for us, but looking at the context it's easy to see how Gates felt that it was.

However, there is a pretty clear issue of due process and civil rights here. Gates is within his rights in not wanting to step outside his house to have a conversation with an officer. He can easily have the conversation through his door. He is also within his rights to demand ID, and the officer must comply. Officer Crowley, according to both Gates and his own statement, did not.

Lastly, there is the right to speak freely and express your opinion, even to an officer of the law. We may or may not feel that Gates' accusation was justified. However, you must agree that he has the right to make the accusation, whether or not it is true. This has an important implication. Free speech doesn't mean "they can arrest you on trumped up charges, but they have to let you go later. Free speech means the freedom to speak your mind without fear of molestation or harassment from the authorities.

Let me put this another way: Gates may well have been wrong. He may well have been a jerk. He may even have been a racist--I wasn't there. But what he was not is a criminal. You can't arrest people without probable cause to believe that they have committed or will commit a crime. It's kind of an important plank in building a free society--it's one very important thing that differentiates us from a police state.

[EddyBeers]

Well, the 4th Amendment is clearly not as cherished as the second amendment, which really is a sad indictment in this situation. The guy shows ID and is still arrested, the whole situation strikes me as a violation of the 4th Amendment. Cops can only violate the 4th Amendment if the intrusion is only minimal and justified for law enforcement purposes. Some guy yelling at you is a fairly weak excuse to violate the 4th Amendment.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Laughable..I don't think anyone should be unjustifiably labelled a racist, but you make it sound like white people are being victimized by this on some massive scale.

The scale doesn't have to be massive to leave an impression. I'm sure most white Americans hold some empathy for blacks who have suffered from racism. Likewise most white Americans can feel empathy for fellow whites who have been wrongly accused of racism or been unjustly treated in the work place because of affirmative action. It is actually easier to put yourself in someone elses shoes if they are simular to the ones you wear. That is why Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are not well thought of by many whites. Whereas John Kennedy and Martin Luther King are highly regarded. Sharpton and Jackson represents a kind of reverse racism where the white man is always wrong and the black man is always the victim.

Obama put himself in the same company as Sharpton and Jackson by judging the police officer's actions as "stupid" without knowing much more than the color of Gates and the officer's respective skins.

This story will die as all stories do but, the impression Obama gave as a biased observer in a matter of race will be remembered. He lost some trust.

Modified to add: Gates said in his interview that this was the first experience he ever had with racial profileing. Perhaps if he had as much empathy for police officers as he had for ill treated black folks he might of contained himself a little more.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

For you and me, this situation may not be about race. For Gates, it most certainly was. Don't forget that it is Gates' contention that he produced ID as quickly as he could, and that he was arrested immediately upon stepping onto the porch, with no explanation. It's one of the key differences between the police report and Gates' testimony. So--for Gates it's about race. Doesn't mean it has to be for us, but looking at the context it's easy to see how Gates felt that it was.

However, there is a pretty clear issue of due process and civil rights here. Gates is within his rights in not wanting to step outside his house to have a conversation with an officer. He can easily have the conversation through his door. He is also within his rights to demand ID, and the officer must comply. Officer Crowley, according to both Gates and his own statement, did not.

Lastly, there is the right to speak freely and express your opinion, even to an officer of the law. We may or may not feel that Gates' accusation was justified. However, you must agree that he has the right to make the accusation, whether or not it is true. This has an important implication. Free speech doesn't mean "they can arrest you on trumped up charges, but they have to let you go later. Free speech means the freedom to speak your mind without fear of molestation or harassment from the authorities.

Let me put this another way: Gates may well have been wrong. He may well have been a jerk. He may even have been a racist--I wasn't there. But what he was not is a criminal. You can't arrest people without probable cause to believe that they have committed or will commit a crime. It's kind of an important plank in building a free society--it's one very important thing that differentiates us from a police state.

Can you not arrest someone for disturbing the peace? I think the officer was within his rights to do so.
Do I think he should have done it? No. But he did have the right to, based on Gate's actions in public (outside his house on his porch) and his refusal to calm down.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Some guy yelling at you is a fairly weak excuse to violate the 4th Amendment.

The officer did not enter the home because of the yelling, the officer entered the home because he had reason to believe a trespasser had entered unlawfully.

If you are referring to Gates being arrested, that seems like more of a 1st ammendment issue where I completely agree with IFF's recent post.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Do I think he should have done it? No. But he did have the right to, based on Gate's actions in public (outside his house on his porch) and his refusal to calm down.

I disagree. Maybe he had the right within the scope of law, but this doesn't pass my "smell test." Dude was angry because a cop was in his home, called him names and threw a fit on his own property. That shouldn't be an arrestable offense.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The officer did not enter the home because of the yelling, the officer entered the home because he had reason to believe a trespasser had entered unlawfully.

If you are referring to Gates being arrested, that seems like more of a 1st ammendment issue where I completely agree with IFF's recent post.

FYI - Search and Arrest = 4th Amendment
Speech and Assembly = 1st Amendment

So really they're both at play.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Can you not arrest someone for disturbing the peace? I think the officer was within his rights to do so.
Do I think he should have done it? No. But he did have the right to, based on Gate's actions in public (outside his house on his porch) and his refusal to calm down.

You can, but not willy-nilly. There are specific legal standards for that, just as there are with any crime. In practical terms, the statute Gates was accused of violating was not "disturbing the peace" but "disorderly conduct"--which sounds like a catch-all, but in practice it really isn't, which may have been Officer Crowley's grave error in this instance. Disorderly conduct is actually quite specific, and nothing Gates did rose to that level.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by valo403

FYI - Search and Arrest = 4th Amendment
Speech and Assembly = 1st Amendment

So really they're both at play.

Were Gates' 4th amendment rights violated?

Maybe I'm going off on an unrelated tangent again, and should just pipe down.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Were Gates' 4th amendment rights violated?

Maybe I'm going off on an unrelated tangent again, and should just pipe down.

Well an unlawful arrest is a 4th Amendment violation, and the entry into the home could potentially be seen as such. I don't know that there was a really clear violation, but it could be argued.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well an unlawful arrest is a 4th Amendment violation, and the entry into the home could potentially be seen as such. I don't know that there was a really clear violation, but it could be argued.

I can see the 4th amendment coming into play only if Gates was caught doing something illegal within the home when the officer's walked in. From my understanding his alleged crime was committed outside when the police were attempting to leave.

Again I ask: Why would a rational sober man attempt to kick his own door in if he locked himself out? Breaking a small window or calling a locksmith I can see but, not your own front door. Self control certainly isn't his fortia.

[jammies]

All I have to say is there is a difference between saying someone is stupid and someone has done something stupid. Many of you need to reread what Obama said and stop misrepresenting his statements.

PS - I don't agree with him commenting on the case at all, but that doesn't mean you should misinterpret what he had to say.