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.

 

 

You mean like Bull Conner and his likes used in the 50's and 60's on people who protested Jim Crow laws and false arrests by bull-boy sheriffs?

 

BTW, your quote at the end of the first paragraph: Same thing would happen to you, on a playground or in your own yard is interesting because neither of those places are remotely connected to the location of Mr. Gates arrest. He was in his house and then on the porch, connected to his house. Not a public playground or even an open area such as a yard next to public grounds.

 

Before I forget, Glad to have you back RTS. :thumb:

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?

 

I know it's semantics, but I would hope officers are more than just knowledgeable when it comes to something like search in 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.

 

I'm in federal law enforcement, so I'm hardly any expert on the crime of disorderly conduct. My best guess is that the legislature intentionally leaves the law somewhat vague and loosely-worded so as to give the police a little, shall we say, working room. There will always be individual and subjective interpretations of what constitutes "tumultuous" and "offensive" behavior. Do I think the wording of the law needs to be "tightened up a little"? Personally, no, but I am probably not the most objective person in the world to be voicing an opinion on this.

 

It would be hard to explain how much knowledge is necessary in matters of something like search and seizure. I know how to complete an affadavit, make a case for probable cause, how to go before a judge, know what I can and can't look for/take based on the warrant, how to follow my agency's specific directives in executing the warrant, etc... But does my knowledge extend deep into case law of search and seizure? Not necessarily. After 23 years, you know more than a 3-year agent, but I'm far, far short of an expert and the 3-year agent is certainly not some clueless buffoon. When I hear people use language about knowing "constitutional law", it (to me) implies a much deeper knowledge of case law and history than most law enforcement officials would generally have. But, generally, I think you and I are on the same page with this issue.

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.

No, I've been saying all along when you don't comply, you run the risk of exactly what happened. Try as you may to put words in my mouth, that's the crux of the issue.

You mean like Bull Conner and his likes used in the 50's and 60's on people who protested Jim Crow laws and false arrests by bull-boy sheriffs?

 

BTW, your quote at the end of the first paragraph: Same thing would happen to you, on a playground or in your own yard is interesting because neither of those places are remotely connected to the location of Mr. Gates arrest. He was in his house and then on the porch, connected to his house. Not a public playground or even an open area such as a yard next to public grounds.

 

Before I forget, Glad to have you back RTS. :thumb:

First off, thanks Hatz, I missed talking with you.

 

So, are you saying this was racially motivated by the police?

 

The playground remark was because Habib called my comment a playground argument. Just a little levity.

The yard would be his property as well, but that doesn't matter. The guy didn't listen, didn't comply and he got arrested. Hopefully he learned a lesson, but I somehow doubt it.

I can be arrested on my porch or in my yard if I don't heed the warning of the police. It's really quite elementary. Now, whether or not the charge will stick is up to the prosecutor or the courts, not the officer. The officer in this case merely did his job, nothing more.

First off, thanks Hatz, I missed talking with you.

 

So, are you saying this was racially motivated by the police?

 

The playground remark was because Habib called my comment a playground argument. Just a little levity.

The yard would be his property as well, but that doesn't matter. The guy didn't listen, didn't comply and he got arrested. Hopefully he learned a lesson, but I somehow doubt it.

I can be arrested on my porch or in my yard if I don't heed the warning of the police. It's really quite elementary. Now, whether or not the charge will stick is up to the prosecutor or the courts, not the officer. The officer in this case merely did his job, nothing more.

 

 

My point about Bull Conner is that if the local police force is allowed to call anything they "deem" as "disturbing the peace" then how can free speech be practiced vs. those in power. My example was that this use of that vague clause was what Bull, Lester Maddox and company used to quelch racial protest and disagreement with law enforcement on people from marches to lunch counters and public parks.

 

To be honest I don't know what role race played in any of this. If anything, it might have played in the role of the neighbor who called it in and didn't really know who lived in her neighborhood.

 

I think the real crux of the issue is that you have a man who is absolutely offended to be suspected of breaking into his own house.

 

He is already lathered by the fact he had to "break in" to his own house.

 

A neighbor he doesn't know has called in a complaint.

 

He has known racism in other forms before and assumes the worst with the neighbor and the officer.

 

The officer tries to do his job through this emotionally charged moment and seems to push the envelope a little to promote his authority and control Mr. Gates with that authority instead of diffusing the charged atmosphere (would it have been wrong to have handed Mr. Gates a business card with his name and info on it? Just asking.).

 

As many others have posted, I think there's enough blame to go around for both parties involved. I do think that if Mr. Gates had not lost his head, (i.e. the way he over reacted to his perceived slight) then this incident would not have warranted the arrest from the officer.

My point about Bull Conner is that if the local police force is allowed to call anything they "deem" as "disturbing the peace" then how can free speech be practiced vs. those in power. My example was that this use of that vague clause was what Bull, Lester Maddox and company used to quelch racial protest and disagreement with law enforcement on people from marches to lunch counters and public parks.

 

To be honest I don't know what role race played in any of this. If anything, it might have played in the role of the neighbor who called it in and didn't really know who lived in her neighborhood.

 

I think the real crux of the issue is that you have a man who is absolutely offended to be suspected of breaking into his own house.

 

He is already lathered by the fact he had to "break in" to his own house.

 

A neighbor he doesn't know has called in a complaint.

 

He has known racism in other forms before and assumes the worst with the neighbor and the officer.

 

The officer tries to do his job through this emotionally charged moment and seems to push the envelope a little to promote his authority and control Mr. Gates with that authority instead of diffusing the charged atmosphere (would it have been wrong to have handed Mr. Gates a business card with his name and info on it? Just asking.).

 

As many others have posted, I think there's enough blame to go around for both parties involved. I do think that if Mr. Gates had not lost his head, (i.e. the way he over reacted to his perceived slight) then this incident would not have warranted the arrest from the officer.

You don't have to be black to know racism, that's a fact. Racism comes in many colors, sadly.

 

Bottom line is the guy was having a bad day and he took it out on the cop. Being a police officer is all too often a thankless job. I find it sad that whenever a white officer arrests a black suspect these days he's automatically hit with the "racial profiling card". I doubt I could put up with the crap the police have to deal with today.

 

I totally agree with you that if Mr. Gates wouldn't have lost his cool, he wouldn't have been arrested.

Lets look at this in a theoretical sense. Gates comes out of his house screaming racism by the police and the police do not respond. If this is a predominantly black neighborhood, many people start to gather outside. Is the proper method for police to handle this situation to wait for a full fledged riot to ensue?

 

The police has authority to control a situation that is getting out of hand, otherwise we have no law. If someone is trying to incite the masses, should we wait for violence to ensue to start taking control? IMO this is exactly what Mr. Gates was trying to incite.

 

Obama's response was either done with misinformation or an agenda to not mess with my friends. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.

Lets look at this in a theoretical sense. Gates comes out of his house screaming racism by the police and the police do not respond. If this is a predominantly black neighborhood, many people start to gather outside. Is the proper method for police to handle this situation to wait for a full fledged riot to ensue?

 

The police has authority to control a situation that is getting out of hand, otherwise we have no law. If someone is trying to incite the masses, should we wait for violence to ensue to start taking control? IMO this is exactly what Mr. Gates was trying to incite.

 

Obama's response was either done with misinformation or an agenda to not mess with my friends. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the neighborhood was predominantly black. Therefore, your theoretical argument wouldn't be a reason for the arrest because there were no "masses" to incite. (Black or White)

 

Like I said before, Mr. Gates over reaction was a major culprit IMO, as was the over reaction of this particular officer. (again IMO)

I am tired of the 24 hour "new developments/breaking news" of the little beer summit.

I am tired of the 24 hour "new developments/breaking news" of the little beer summit.

 

:jump: True dat. I have to agree totally.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the neighborhood was predominantly black. Therefore, your theoretical argument wouldn't be a reason for the arrest because there were no "masses" to incite. (Black or White)

 

Like I said before, Mr. Gates over reaction was a major culprit IMO, as was the over reaction of this particular officer. (again IMO)

 

I believe we were talking right or wrong here, and the word theoretical has been either greatly misinterpreted or totally ignored.

I would have loved to seen the police officer say he wouldn't be attending a beer summit because a good number of calls he responds to involves alcohol abuse and he does not think it is right for him and the President to send a message to youth that they way to solve disputes is over beer. THat more often to not, this leads to the police end up being called.

I would have loved to seen the police officer say he wouldn't be attending a beer summit because a good number of calls he responds to involves alcohol abuse and he does not think it is right for him and the President to send a message to youth that they way to solve disputes is over beer. THat more often to not, this leads to the police end up being called.

 

Gates should have said that he didn't want to meet outside because the sun was up and it would send a bad message that its okay to sit out in the sun even though it causes skin cancer......:confused:

 

Alcohol doesn't cause people to do stupid things people do.

I would have loved to seen the police officer say he wouldn't be attending a beer summit because a good number of calls he responds to involves alcohol abuse and he does not think it is right for him and the President to send a message to youth that they way to solve disputes is over beer. THat more often to not, this leads to the police end up being called.

Sitting down drinking a beer is a FAR FAR cry from alcohol abuse.

I would have loved to seen the police officer say he wouldn't be attending a beer summit because a good number of calls he responds to involves alcohol abuse and he does not think it is right for him and the President to send a message to youth that they way to solve disputes is over beer. THat more often to not, this leads to the police end up being called.

 

You can't be serious. How in the world does having a beer promote alcohol abuse?