What constitutionally protected right was violated? Good lord your reaching.

 

Amendments I & IV :eek: is that such a reach, the guy was arrested for words that he said in his home and on his property. He didn't threaten or attempt to fight or harm anyone.

It was in a public setting the minute Gates exited his home and kept running his yapper.

 

So running you're yapper is a crime? I just want clarification since the cop is such in the right and Gates obviously violated the law, why was he not prosecuted?

It was in a public setting the minute Gates exited his home and kept running his yapper.

From the report, it seems that Prof. Gates was running his yapper from his own porch. No doubt was he acting like a fool, but he has the right to do so from his own property. This is the reason that Habib keeps referencing the totalitarian state- in our country, free speech is a right, and especially from your own private property.

 

I still think Gates, a Harvard professor, should have acted more sensibly, but I don't think he should have been arrested. It is a shame that people can treat cops like garbage, but, while they deserve respect, there is no legal reason why they should receive any more legal benefits then the rest of us. Doing so would be a dangerous precedent.

He could say what he wanted from his porch so long as it was not in a loud and disorderly manner.

He did something wrong, he acted like a horse's behind. Acting like a horses behind and insulting someone is not a crime. It shows lack of self control, poor anger management and disrespect for another human being. He did not IMO or the opinion of the prosecutors office violate any laws.

 

For any attorneys on here, does anyone know where I could find any statistics about what percentage of the number of arrests for Disorderly conduct are actually prosecuted? I'm guessing it is very small.

 

You are very much mistaken to assume that simply because a charge was dropped that a prosecutor does not feel a law was violated. There are many other reasons - including a belief that the suspect's actions did not meet the elements of the crime - why they may elect to dismiss charges. Their only comment in this case was that the incident was "unfortunate and regrettable", not that the charges were unjust. It is very possible that they simply felt that, while a disorderly conduct offense did occur, it was nonetheless very minor, not worth the hassle and time to prosecute a case that would likely go to trial, and that the situation could have been resolved without an arrest. It does not necessarily mean that the arrest was invalid.

Edited July 30, 200917 yr by cooperstown

He could say what he wanted from his porch so long as it was not in a loud and disorderly manner.

 

:thumb:

You are very much mistaken to assume that simply because a charge was dropped that a prosecutor does not feel a law was violated. There are many other reasons - including a belief that the suspect's actions did not meet the lements of the crime - why they may elect to dismiss charges. Their only comment in this case was that the incident was "unfortunate and regrettable", not that the charges were unjust. It is very possible that they simply felt that, while a disordely conduct offense did occur, it was nonetheless very minor, not worth the hassle and time to prosecute, and that the situation could have been resolved without an arrest. It does not necessarily mean that the arrest was invalid.

 

Question: Is the above bolded a contradiction?

http://www.occr.dc.gov/occr/lib/occr/pdf/disorderly_conduct_policy_recommendation.pdf

 

I found this report put out quite a few years ago by the Citizen Complaint Review Board for the Washington D.C. police department. I thought it was fairly interesting.

Question: Is the above bolded a contradiction?

 

Not at all. There are many times that an arrest is made (valid) that COULD have been handled differently (i.e., no arrest).

 

I am as pro-law enforcement as they come (especially since I am one). In this case, while the arrest was technically valid IMO, they probably would have been better served to just walk away and let Gates have his meaningless rant alone on the porch. It's actually a pretty effective strategy when dealing with a hot-head idiot such as Gates who goes on some tirade. They are dying to have an audience, dying to "show you up." It pains them even more if you simply walk away and leave them to rant on their own.

Not at all. There are many times that an arrest is made (valid) that COULD have been handled differently (i.e., no arrest).

 

I am as pro-law enforcement as they come (especially since I am one). In this case, while the arrest was technically valid IMO, they probably would have been better served to just walk away and let Gates have his meaningless rant alone on the porch. It's actually a pretty effective strategy when dealing with a hot-head idiot such as Gates who goes on some tirade. They are dying to have an audience, dying to "show you up." It pains them even more if you simply walk away and leave them to rant on their own.

 

I think I see what you are saying.

 

As to the last paragraph, that has been my bona contention all along. Most of the law enforcement officers I know do that more times than people know.

I am shocked that someone would even ask this question. It is their job to enforce Laws and to do so without violating personal freedoms. So yes they most certainly should be very knowledgeable about Constitutional law.

 

I said "expert" which is quite different than "being knowledgeable".

I said "expert" which is quite different than "being knowledgeable".

 

And you are right. No police officer/federal agent is an "expert" in constitutional law - not even for the specific laws they enforce. That job is the responsibility of the district attorneys who are charged with prosecuting the crime and defending the various challenges posed by defense counsel. Agents/officers only need be "knowledgeable", as you stated, about the elements of the statutes that constitute the crimes that they enforce.

First, I would never do that, so you can end that playground argument. Second, the way I interpret your argument here, as I did others, is that you are advocating a totalitarian state, is that correct? You can and should be arrested for disobeying authority even if there is no legal basis for their order?

No, that's called misinterpreting.

Your argument is weak, you are insinuating that the officer had no reason for his order and that regardless of fact that he is a police officer he has no authority to arrest someone for not complying. Gates got out of control and dismissed an order from a police officer, he got arrested. Same thing would happen to you, on a playground or in your own yard.

 

Almost every state has a disorderly conduct law that makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to "disturb the peace", or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger.

No, that's called misinterpreting.

 

No, your argument was that if a person insulted a police officer, which is not a crime, they would be arrested and imprisoned on the authority of the officer alone, not the law. From your tone you seemed more than happy to cheerlead this. How do you square that when you simultaneously oppose a totalitarian state? At least that you claim to oppose one.

Not at all. There are many times that an arrest is made (valid) that COULD have been handled differently (i.e., no arrest).

 

I am as pro-law enforcement as they come (especially since I am one). In this case, while the arrest was technically valid IMO, they probably would have been better served to just walk away and let Gates have his meaningless rant alone on the porch. It's actually a pretty effective strategy when dealing with a hot-head idiot such as Gates who goes on some tirade. They are dying to have an audience, dying to "show you up." It pains them even more if you simply walk away and leave them to rant on their own.

 

I agree with this, though I still lean away from the arrest meeting the criteria for "disorderly." It seems there are shades of gray with "disorderly conduct" charges, which would seem to give officers carte blanche when dealing with citizens. Do you think that law should be more specific?

 

And you are right. No police officer/federal agent is an "expert" in constitutional law - not even for the specific laws they enforce. That job is the responsibility of the district attorneys who are charged with prosecuting the crime and defending the various challenges posed by defense counsel. Agents/officers only need be "knowledgeable", as you stated, about the elements of the statutes that constitute the crimes that they enforce.

 

I know it's semantics, but I would hope officers are more than just knowledgeable when it comes to something like search and seizure. If not they would probably be a nightmare for the D.A. And this is not to say they need to know all relevant case law and SC opinions.

Edited July 30, 200917 yr by Habib