By Carlos Miller
By now you surely heard the story of the black Harvard professor who forgot his key, so had to break into his own house, which resulted in police being dispatched and him being arrested.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. didn’t get arrested for breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct after he asked the cop for his name and badge number. We know they hate that.
And anybody who reads this blog knows that disorderly conduct is one of the most abused charges cops use against people. It is, in fact, the default charge when police can’t think of an actual crime being committed.
Disorderly conduct was one of the original nine charges I was slapped with after my arrest for photographing cops against their wishes two years ago. It was also one of the ones that were dropped.
Just as it was in Gates’ case.
Gates believed he was profiled because he is black and he may be right. He also believes that if he were a white professor, he would not have been arrested.
But if that white professor had asked for the cop’s name and badge number, there is a good chance he would have also been arrested.
After all, contempt of cop knows no color barriers.
But the thousands of stories that have been written on this incident so far have focused on the race issue.The media has turned this into a black vs white issue when it’s really more than that.
It’s actually a class issue. That dumb cop made the mistake of arresting a Harvard professor. One who is friends with the president of the United States.
Had it been any Joe Blow, whether he was white or black, life would have gone on as if nothing had happened.
Where was the national media and the president when a white guy getting a Taser gun stuck up his ass by a white cop?
Or when a white girl who got a gun pressed against her face by a Hispanic officer because she was involved in some minor fender bender with his son?
Or when a white grandmother got Tasered by a white cop because she refused to sign a speeding ticket?
Or when a white middle-aged lesbian who got beat up by a white cop because she hosted a liberal political fundraiser?
Or when the two white reporters who were arrested by a Hispanic cop for doing their job?
Or if that is not enough, just take a look at Police Misconduct News Feed compiled by Injustice Everywhere.
It’s true that black people get harassed on a much more disproportionally level than non-blacks. Anybody who denies that is naive.
Let’s not forget the black teenage girl who got attacked by a white cop because she flipped a shoe at him.
Or the black EMT who was strangled by a white cop (after the cop pulled over the white driver for not yielding to him).
Or the black motorist who was beat up by a white cop who had the audacity to lie about the whole thing, even though he knew it was recorded on a dash cam video.
And let’s not ever forget the black unarmed man who was shot and killed by a white cop earlier this year in an incident that was caught on a cell phone video.
But not even the Oscar Grant shooting generated this much response from the national media, much less a comment from the president. Granted, President Barack Obama had not taken office yet during the Grant shooting, but judging by the coverage it received outside of San Francisco, he probably would not have been asked his opinion on it by one of the beltway media whores.
Obama has been criticized for stating that this cop “acted stupidly,” mostly by white people and especially that white cop, for “interfering with a local issue” but he was asked his opinion and he gave it. He did not use his executive power to influence anything. Gates’ charges had already been dropped. I found his comments refreshing, but then again, I voted for him.
Nevertheless, Obama’s comments prompted the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, to insist that he is not racist and that he will not apologize for arresting Gates.
We will probably never know if he is racist or not, but what we do know is that he arrested Gates after the professor demanded his name and badge number.
He even admits that Gates could have avoided arrest by shutting his mouth and going back into his house.
Crowley also said that arresting Gates “was something I really didn’t want to do,” but that “the professor could have resolved the issue at any time by quieting down and going back into his house.”
And that is the real problem. The fact that we, as citizens, are expected to not question police officers. And if we do, then we should expect to be arrested, Tasered or even killed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
110 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Martin // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:23 AM
And that is, 100%, the real issue here. Another case of contempt of cop. Who do these guys think they are?
2 Freddy Hill // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Yes it is a matter of class. The lack of class of Prof. Gates.
There is also profiling going on here: Prof. Gates looked at the white cop and profiled him: All white cops are racist, he immediately concluded. Crackers all!
The arrest was probably dumb, but I was not there to be sure. If the cop’s narrative is correct (and it seems that was written right away, and is quite detailed, corroborated when it can be by witnesses) Prof. Gates comes across as a total asshole with an enourmous chip on his shoulder. Obama said that the Cambridge police was acting stupidly. He is wrong. it was Dr. Gates that acted stupidly.
3 genewitch // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:09 AM
Lol white people shouting reverse racism cracks me the fuck up. Shut up, Freddy, you’re a moron.
He went to school for at least 6 years, probably a lot more to attain “professor” in his name. Dickhead cop applied for a job and was handed a gun and a badge.
A cop arresting someone on his own property for talking/yelling after ownership is verified is just harassment, plain and simple.
4 Packratt // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:52 AM
Carlos, again, you’ve read my mind exactly on this case… however…
I think what worries me most about this case and the direction it looks like it’s heading towards is that Obama, in putting his two cents in on behalf of his friend, is now backpedaling in the face of police officer organizations crying about how unfair it was to call that poor cop stupid.
How is that a problem? Just think of the work his VP has been doing to convince police unions and organizations that the administration and their judicial pick is “on their side”.
I foresee the pressure mounting from police unions, an important political force in the US these days, causing Obama to overcompensate to get back in their good graces with some stupidly thought-out tough on crime or pro-police privacy acts in the future.
…all for picking what may well be the least effective case of alleged police misconduct for him to speak out about out of all the oh-so-much more worthy ones he kept his mouth shut about, as you called out so well.
…sorry to turn a comment into a blog post, but you’ve already said most of what I was thinking, just had to finish that thought.
Thanks Carlos!
5 10-8 // Jul 24, 2009 at 7:26 AM
Once again Carlos Miller has allowed his hate to get in the way of rational thinking. He doesn’t know his subject matter and attempts to rely on his ignorance of the law.
The identification issue is irrelevant. What happened in the house is irrelevant.
You’re not allowed to break the law because you don’t like what some cop is doing. If Mr. Gates felt the officer was not complying with the law, the remedy is downtown for that. You don’t break the law because you think the officer isn’t doing his job correctly.
Gates committed a criminal act. The arresting officer did not commit a criminal act.
This arrest was 100 percent valid. Gates was 100 percent in the wrong. Carlos Miller is 100 percent wrong (again).
6 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 7:33 AM
10-8
Gee, all those words and you never did state exactly how Gates broke the law..
7 Tristan Phillips // Jul 24, 2009 at 7:57 AM
Here Carlos, I did some Googling for you:
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article240.htm . Subsections 1, 2, and 3 look like they apply.
If the police report and witness statements are correct then the Harvard bigot did break the law for Disorderly Conduct (240.20). It was Gates’ choice to continue his racist tirade outside his home and follow the cop down. All Gates had to do was shut up after the cop walked away and he would have been left alone. His *need* to continue to play the race card and repeatedly insult the cop is what got him arrested. As a helpful guide, if Bigot Gates had done that to an ordinary citizen and got slugged in the face as a result Bigot Gates would have been SOL under the “fighting words” doctrine in NYS law.
Don’t like the wording of 240.20? Call up Albany and have the numbnuts change the law. Until then, it is what it is and Bigot Gates is guilty under the statute (Assuming the police reports AND witness statements are correct).
You really need to take that anti-cop axe away from the grindstone once and a while and try to have some objectivity. If you’re trying to advocate for photography, using a case that doesn’t have that as an issue is a poor way to advance your cause.
Unless it’s more about being anti-cop, and not about anti-cop who abuse photographers.
8 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Thank you, Carlos, for stating what the media can’t seem to see right under its nose. This was not as much about race as it was about a cop disciplining a private citizen in the privacy of his own home for refusing to – as Eric Cartman would say – “respect my authoritah!”
9 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM
@7: I disagree. However, I will not argue the legal point because even if you’re right this is clearly a case where the officer was in his right to use selective or discretionary enforcement, a power which courts have always granted to law enforcement officers. From Wikipedia’s entry on “selective enforcment:”
“Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses, for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process which also reduces costs of governmental legal resources. Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly.”
Police officers use selective enforcement all the time. And this is clearly a case where it not only could have been used but should have been used. Gates was in his own home. He was bothering no one. His tirade was only being instigated by the police presence, nothing else. If the police would have simply left his tirade would have ceased. His arrest served the interest of no one, especially the citizens and taxpayers of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
10 Rick // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:59 AM
“Where was the national media and the president….?”
That one’s pretty easy. They have more on their plate than obsessing over every single allegation of police misconduct.
.
11 chicken dinner // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM
@Tristan Phillips comment #7
You don’t read.
240.20 clearly states “with intent to cause public inconvenience”.
The man was arrested on his private property. He was clearly not trying to inconvenience the public. He was trying to inconvenience the cop.
The charge was bogus.
You need a spiritual event to convert your heart: like maybe getting a taser shoved up your asshole.
12 xdamousex // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Crowley also said that arresting Gates “was something I really didn’t want to do,” but that “the professor could have resolved the issue at any time by quieting down and going back into his house.”
My main problem with officers like this is they are too busy deflecting blame on everyone else rather than try to address how they could approach the problem differently. The onus is on you, as the professional peace-keeping officer, to do what you can to diffuse a situation. That’s what you’re hired to do. Quit distributing the blame elsewhere, it’s cowardly.
On the situation as a whole, although initially it looked like the typical BS disorderly conduct charge, I can see the officer’s side of it if what he was saying was indeed true. This professor had some white cops come bother him on his property, checking to make sure he wasn’t a burglar, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Gates went all Malcolm X on the cop.
Also, Obama may have made a big mistake shooting his mouth off on a local event he knows nothing about. We’ll see if he gets embroiled in a major controversy, it certainly looks to be the case so far.
All that being said, I despise the disorderly conduct law. Nothing has done more damage to civil rights than that law.
13 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:48 AM
It may be entirely missing the point, but it gives CNN the chance to put up two talking head “experts” and kill some time while they prattle on about things that are beside the point.
14 Tom // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:49 AM
> Or the black EMT who was strangled by a white EMT
Carlos, I think you made a mistake here. Otherwise, very well written argument that I think needs more attention.
15 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Tom,
But that is why I point out the cop initially a white EMT for not yielding to him.
xdamousex,
I don’t think Obama made a mistake. He would have made more of a mistake by pretending he didn’t know what the reporter was talking about.
And he was careful to state his opinion based on the facts presented. He acknowledged he didn’t have firsthand info on the situation.
The people who are crucifying him on this are the people who are crucifying every day for one thing or another. Tomorrow it will be something else.
16 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Tristan,
If you’re going to through the trouble of Googling, at least Google a law that pertains to the state we are talking about.
Gates was arrested in Massachusetts, not in New York.
Here is the Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct statute for your convenience. Read it, analyze it and find some language that you believe pertains to this arrest.
And then we’ll continue this discussion.
A disorderly person is defined as one who:
* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
* recklessly creates a risk thereof
* engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
* creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.
Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.
I am in different criminal courts across the state everyday, defending my clients rights and freedom. If you need someone on your side against the legal system, call me and I’ll offer my experience and advice to you, with no obligation.
If you are charged with disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace or another criminal offense, call me now at my office in Dedham, MA at (781)326-2700, or my Brockton office to schedule your free first appointment now.
MGL CHAPTER 272. Mass General Laws, excerpt.
Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm
17 Esq // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Gates was not arrested for disagreeing with the cop or asking for his ID.
Gates was arrested for coming out on the porch and screaming at the cops as they were leaving. It’s classic disorderly conduct.
The real issue here is that screaming on your porch at other people is a criminal act in most states, including Massachusetts. If Gates had been convicted, he would have faced up to 6 mos in jail. Race, Obama, “contempt of cop” etc are all irrelevant to this case and would never be considered at trial.
18 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM
@Carlos
Tom means that a white EMT didn’t strangle anyone, a white COP did.
19 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:16 AM
@Esq
“Gates was arrested for coming out on the porch and screaming at the cops as they were leaving. It’s classic disorderly conduct.”
“As they were leaving” is a misrepresentation. They were still questioning Gates.
And really, telling some cops to go pound sand on your own property isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime.
20 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Michaelk42,
Ah yes, you’re right. Missed that one the first time around. Thanks for pointing it out.
21 xdamousex // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I don’t think Obama made a mistake. He would have made more of a mistake by pretending he didn’t know what the reporter was talking about.
Personally, I think it would have been smarter to say something along the lines of that he is “disturbed” about the incident and perhaps even wonder aloud what an old professor with a cane could do to cause serious problems for a cop, but to just come out and say the officer behaved “stupidly” seems a bit reckless on his part.
22 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM
@17: Screaming on one’s own porch would not rise to a disorderly conduct offense according to none other than the Massachusetts Supreme Court. From Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967):
“It is our opinion that “disorderly” sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): ‘A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.”, [Emphasis added by poster]
I don’t believe that anyone other than Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has access, or requires access for that matter, to the porch of Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. His porch is just as much his private property as his house.
23 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Thank you, JLA.
Disorderly conduct is generally defined as creating a public nuisance.
But the prof was on his own property and the only people who were disturbed were the cops, who were not even invited on his property.
24 Roger // Jul 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I do not think race had much too do with it. Ego did. You have two asses locking horns trying to prove who’s is blackest.
25 chris // Jul 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM
that’s a great link Tristan, but that’s NY State Law, NOT MASS Law. Either way freedom of speech should overrule “contempt of cop” any day of the week! if the arrest was valid then why did the DA drop the case almost immediately? There is gonna be a nice 5 figures settlement for Gates…
26 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Roger,
I agree. A clash of egos.
27 Nemo // Jul 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM
A classic case of the famous law: “You can’t talk to me (a cop) like that!” Nothing more, nothing less.
Playing the race card after the fact merely clouds the issue, IMO.
28 Billy Beck // Jul 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Tristan Phillips: you and your law can go *fuck* yourselves.
Keep whistling past the graveyard, sonny. This bullshit will end soon enough, whether you and your cops like it or not.
Mark my words.
29 Roger // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Mr. Beck, what do you propose?
30 Barnstable LEO // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Whether or not JLA, Carlos Miller, etc. think that disorderly conduct occurred is irrelevant. Your personal interpretation of caselaw is irrelevant. You’re not judges. What “sounds good” to you is not sufficient.
People are regularly convicted of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts using the Alegata standard, including people who scream on their porch. Pull up the Westlaw cites on Alegata and you’ll see hundreds of them. Unless the porch is enclosed and locked, then as a matter of law it is open to public access.
Whether or not Mr. Gates’s behavior violated the law would be determined by a judge and jury, no one else.
31 Billy Beck // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I don’t have a proposal, Roger. There is not enough of an American mind remaining to propose anything *to*.
Reality will have its way, and you will all see for yourselves.
32 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:35 PM
@Barnstable LEO
No one else except the people that immediately dropped the charges they knew they couldn’t get a conviction on.
The purpose of arresting for contempt of cop is obviously not for obtaining a conviction, anyway. It’s all about intimidation and punishing someone for having the temerity to tell a cop to go get stuffed.
33 Roger // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Mr. Beck, you do have a point. But, if you mean what you are hinting at, keep this in mind. Over 70% of all insurrections fail and the life expectancy of a resistance operative is 6 months. You will not see the end of it.
34 xdamousex // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Whether or not JLA, Carlos Miller, etc. think that disorderly conduct occurred is irrelevant. Your personal interpretation of caselaw is irrelevant. You’re not judges. What “sounds good” to you is not sufficient.
It’s this kind of arrogance toward citizens that typifies the kind of bad LEO behavior that leads to these sorts of incidents. A little respect for the citizenship would go a long way in resolving many conflicts that police escalate. Too many officers do not go into a situation thinking “I’m going to diffuse this situation,” they go into it thinking “I’m going to go make sure everyone here respects my authority.” This aggressive attitude just leads to bad situations.
Police departments need to institute better training to teach cops how to approach and respect citizens.
35 xdamousex // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I would hope that most cops are not bad apples like “Barnstable LEO”, but unfortunately the system does not adequately punish aggressive/arrogant behavior. That’s the underlying problem here.
Surely there is some way to take the internal investigations unit in police departments and make it external.
36 Billy Beck // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM
“You will not see the end of it.”
I don’t expect to, Roger, and my own desires run in a very different direction from what we’re talking about.
That doesn’t matter.
37 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Unless the porch is enclosed and locked, then as a matter of law it is open to public access.
Really? Enclosed and locked? So, if I leave my door closed, but unlocked, it’s open to public access, huh? My rooftop isn’t enclosed either. Does that mean someone with a ladder has public access to that, too? Utterly absurd.
38 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM
@xdamousex @JLA
Well, it’s a hand interpretation of the law if you just want to use it to haul someone in as temporary instant punishment for not cowering appropriately.
So I guess that works for “Barnstable LEO” aka “someone who’s linked to some random department page as far as we know.”
39 Sheepdog // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I’m amazed it took you people this long to rally around Skippy Gates. This case was custom made for Cubmaster Carlos and the Contempt of Cop Sob Sisters. I’ve stopped in here several times to see when Skippy would be fitted for his halo and was sadly disappointed to find nothing.
Skippy Gates is a classic example of what happens when an arrogant blowhard with a chip on his shoulder escalates a situation out of control. He could have showed his ID to the officers, thanked them for their concern, and it would’ve ended in two minutes. Every cop I know on patrol has citizen lockout calls all the time. Normal, rational adults are happy to cooperate with the police, show their ID, and it ends.
But Skippy had to be the martyr. Instead of showing his ID, he refused. He went into a tirade about race. He failed to obey the officer’s lawful orders. He insulted the officer’s mother. His behavior gave the officers every reason to hook him up inside the house long before he showed his ID. He acted like a crazed tweaker.
The cops finally got him calmed down and were ready to leave. But no, Skippy Gates had to continue proving what an arrogant tool he is. He had to take it outside and crank up his tirade again. Once he stepped outside his house, however, he entered into Disorderly Conduct Territory. You can’t be convicted of disorderly/disturbing inside your house, but you can be convicted of it everywhere outside, including porch, lawn, driveway, balcony, roof, you name it.
To add idiocy to his foolishness, Skippy had to break the law in front of more than a dozen cops. You have about as much chance of beating a disorderly/disturbing rap as you have of beating a traffic citation. When you have a dozen cops testifying that you were disturbing the peace, screaming obscenities, making threats, and more, you have positively guaranteed yourself a conviction.
Based on my several decades in law enforcement, I’d estimate that the conviction rate on a disorderly is about 98 percent. That means for every 100 bozos who act like Skippy, maybe two beat the rap.
Keep on fooling yourself that Skippy was in the right and the cops were in the wrong. If you insist on acting like a tool and breaking the law like Skippy, my fellow officers and I are only more than happy to arrest you. And your neighbors will thank us for it too. No one likes an arrogant idiot screaming on his porch at night. That’s why several hundred of Gates’s neighbors have signed a petition in support of the arresting officer.
Now you all have a lovely day.
40 Billy Beck // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:34 PM
“If you insist on acting like a tool and breaking the law like Skippy, my fellow officers and I are only more than happy to arrest you.”
Don’t try to run the Nuremberg defense on us, sir. If you cannot muster the spine to examine the morality that you serve, then you are worse than an animal.
And America is not so dead yet that you will always get away with it.
Fuck you, cop, until you’re a man again.
41 Nemo // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Huh, and here I thought citizens had the right to request the name and badge number of any cop who chooses to interact with him.
Sheeppuppy, we citizens commenting here(TTBOMK) are not rallying around Gates, we are objecting to fools like you, who believe that anyone who has the gall to look cross-eyed at a cop /deserves/ to be arrested, charged, and convicted. A good sheepdog treats the flock well, and only attacks the wolves – not the sheep. Were I a sheep farmer, I’d shoot a sheepdog who couldn’t tell the difference and bit sheep any time he got his dander up.
For the clueless, no, I’m not advocating shooting LEOs. Firing the unsuitable is fine, and arresting, trying and conviting LOEs who break the law, like the TASER-up-the-butt squad, is even better.
42 Simon Jester // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Sheepdog:
Hope you don’t go rabid any time soon…
43 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM
@Sheepdog
“But Skippy had to be the martyr. Instead of showing his ID, he refused.”
Actually, he did.
“His behavior gave the officers every reason to hook him up inside the house long before he showed his ID
…
You can’t be convicted of disorderly/disturbing inside your house, but you can be convicted of it everywhere outside,”
Uh, contradict yourself much? What was the reason to “hook him up” inside the house if not disorderly/disturbing? And you say here “before he showed his ID,” but you just said he didn’t. What?
“Based on my several decades in law enforcement, I’d estimate that the conviction rate on a disorderly is about 98 percent. That means for every 100 bozos who act like Skippy, maybe two beat the rap.”
So what’s the rate of arrests to actual prosecutions? Yeah, makes a difference.
And bullshit on you having a second of “law enforcement” experience. Nobody cares about your purported background, hiding behind an anonymous handle.
44 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Hell, even the president just came on and said Gates probably overreacted, too.
Difference being Gates can’t cuff someone at gunpoint and haul them off to jail… him you could just walk away from.
45 Nemo // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Cop: “One more word out of you, and I will arrest you for disorderly conduct”
Anyone wanna bet that has never been said to a non-criminal citizen, followed by an arrest?
I wonder how the cops that come here would like it if Carlos used that on /them/, so to speak. i.e. “one more word out of you, and I will ban you”. My guess is that they would squeal like dying rabbits if he did that.
46 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM
@sheepdog
If you must know I’ve seen Prof. Gates several times on TV interviews and every time I see him he comes off to me as pompous asshole. But that’s completely irrelevant.
As far as the 98% conviction rate, you’ve must mean the 98% dismissal rate. Even the most zealous prosecuting attorneys see red flags when they see an original charge of disorderly conduct.
That’s not to say that it comes in handy for them. Oh no. Disorderly conduct is a favorite plea bargaining chip that they use when they can’t get someone on a more serious charge – like domestic violence. Especially when the defendant is a cop. Being a cop I’m sure you know that under the Domestic Violence Gun Ban if a cop is convicted of domestic violence he loses is gun and usually his job. So when a cop is brought up on DV he’s usually more than happy to plea out on DC.
47 Sheepdog // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:07 PM
What was the reason to “hook him up” inside the house if not disorderly/disturbing?
Try this on for size cupcake: If he refused to show his ID, the cop could’ve arrested him for breaking and entering.
Gates only showed his ID after repeated demands. He was lucky he wasn’t arrested for failure to obey a law enforcement officer.
All the drama that happened in the house is actually irrelevant anyway to the disorderly charge as 10-8 correctly explained much earlier. Had Gates stayed inside his house once he satisfied the officers’ demands, he would never have been arrested.
I could care less of Cubmaster Carlos bans me. He actually thanked me once before for posting though. It just made my day.
48 Sheepdog // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM
JLA, I’ll be sure to keep that in mind if I beat my husband.
49 Michaelk42 // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM
@Sheepdog
You can’t even keep straight if he did or didn’t show ID. It’s already been established he did. And now you’re saying he only did so after repeated demands, where before you say he refused.
So no, you haven’t cleared up his “reason to hook him up” that doesn’t equate to an empty hypothetical threat.
Oh, and “cupcake?” Go fuck yourself, troll. Sucks you can’t do anything about that over a TCP/IP connection, doesn’t it?
50 Ariel // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no state in the Union requires ID when dealing with the police outside of a vehicle stop. States require that you clearly identify yourself: some only name; others name and address; there may be one out there that requires DOB but I haven’t seen it. The “you must show me your papers” is a police fiction. Granted, in this situation, photo ID expedites the police leaving the property. Except they didn’t….
Really, I think Crowley was pissed at Gates and just wanted him where his loudmouth could be used against him for ego gratification. He isn’t a racist and is likely a good cop, but someone got under his skin…
In the 2-D thinking of 10-8 and Sheepdog, I would point out that no crime was committed because the charges were dropped. So no 100% there, 10-8. Just because you arrest someone, that doesn’t mean a crime was committed, or that the person is guilty of a crime. Just using your own logic, guys.
As for profiling, given that police are alleged to commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population (remember, DOJ stats are not conviction rates but allegation rates), shouldn’t you be profiling yourselves?
I don’t hate you guys. But I want you to clean up your own house before you talk about how dirty mine is. Why don’t you guys try to get your alcoholism, DV rates, sexual assault rates, physical assault rates, etc., down to the rest of us, then you can talk about the rest of us.
Quit getting your Unions and Departments to give free passes to fellow officers that would land the rest of us in jail or prison for a number of years. What, because you carry a badge, you can’t be a criminal? Please. Do you guys really have morals and ethics? I haven’t seen them yet. If the cop always makes a righteous bust to you, then you haven’t either morals or ethics. At least some of the cops on policeone.com do, thank God there’s hope.
And please give up “we have the most dangerous job” because you aren’t even in the top ten.
51 Ariel // Jul 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Uh, guys, right now a national right-wing radio host, Medved, is talking about how disorderly conduct is often a BS charge used by cops to get back at someone who doesn’t show the proper respect.
One caller talked about how he called a cop a “dumb ass” and then got arrested for disorderly conduct. Medved laughed and said he had been through the same thing. Charges were dropped in both cases.
This isn’t “Life on Mars” guys.
52 Carlos Miller // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I welcome Sheepdog’s comments as well as anybody else’s.
As long as we can keep it somewhat civil and on topic, then I like to hear all sides of an issue, even if I don’t agree with it.
And I don’t think I have ever agreed with Sheepdog, including now.
Sheepdog, you say there is a 98 percent conviction rate for disorderly conduct, but that’s probably only because most people don’t bother challenging it.
After spending a night in jail and facing a judge in the morning, most people just accept the time served conviction because they want to put it behind them.
That doesn’t mean it was a justified arrest.
It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to fight even the basic misdemeanor.
But I did. And I beat the disorderly conduct charge as well as the disobeying a police officer charge.
So I guess that makes me one of the 2 percent.
And I’m about to become probably less than one percent of the people who win their appeal pro see when I get my resisting arrest without violence conviction overturned.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/03/30/the-moment-of-judgment-has-arrived/
53 ClintJCL // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Hey Freddy Hill — Last I checked, being an asshole is our god-given constitutional right. You can accuse whoever you want of being racist — it’s not an arrestable offense. You can’t be arrested for being a stupid asshole.
funny how in a country with free speech, where we can stand on a soapbox and shout whatever the fuck we want — that people sit here and clamor behind a disorderly conduct charge. Just because a law is on the books does not mean it’s constitutional. Slavery used to be legal, and interracial marriage used to be illegal. Would you stand behind those laws simply because they are on the books? Jesus.
54 ClintJCL // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:04 PM
And the cops know that. THAT’S WHY HE WASN’T CHARGED. If he broke a law, why wasn’t he charged? What’s that? Anybody? Bueller?
55 Scott // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM
“Had Gates stayed inside his house once he satisfied the officers’ demands, he would never have been arrested.”
Show your papers and obey.
56 ClintJCL // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Sheepdog, you’re an idiot.
“You have about as much chance of beating a disorderly/disturbing rap as you have of beating a traffic citation.”
Nice wording, but you can almost always beat a disorderly conduct *arrest*, because they drop the charges. Like this time. The guy who was arrested WON, because no charges were filed!
57 JLA // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM
@ClintJCL #54
Actually, he was charged. The charge was later dropped by the prosecuting attorney almost immediately. But it does show what the prosecuting attorney most likely thought of the charge.
58 Alex // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM
This comes down to Gates being arrested because the cop didn’t like his attitude. But it’s the law NATIONWIDE, not just in Massachussets, New York, or wherever, that the cops don’t HAVE to like a citizen’s attitude.
As just one example among many cases (at the state, federal, and Supreme Court level) upholding a citizen’s right to mouth off to the police, see Houston v. Hill (1987) 482 U.S. 451, 461-63 (emphasis added):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451
“[C]ontrary to the city’s contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. “Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant’s husband to produce his driver’s license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime “‘for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.’” Id. at 415 U. S. 132 (citation omitted). We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance “punishe[d] only spoken words,” and was not limited in scope to fighting words that, “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’” Id. at 415 U. S. 133, quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 405 U. S. 525 (1972); see also ibid. (Georgia breach-of-peace statute not limited to fighting words held facially invalid). Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the “fighting words” exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because “a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to ‘exercise a higher degree of restraint’ than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to ‘fighting words.’” 415 U.S. at 415 U. S. 135 (citation omitted).
The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that “in any manner . . . interrupt[s]” an officer. [Footnote 10] The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. [Footnote 11] The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state. ”
Of course, we know that as a practical matter, citizens are routinely dragged in to cool their heels in the clink for what Houston v. Hill and other cases have repeatedly affirmed is protected speech. Charges get dropped or cases get plea-bargained, and only a few citizens actually have the inclination and / or resources to contest the charges on First Amendment grounds, or even to sue the officers under 42 USC § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. And that’s why “contempt of cop” arrests keep happening.
59 Ariel // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Alex #58,
Thank you. Translation for LEOs, you act unlawfully when you arrest those who verbally oppose or challenge your action. So how many times this week have you acted unlawfully? And why do you continue to do so when so many decisions say that ID is not required, or that you’re actions can be questioned? Why, because you can. From whence my question of morals and ethics.
60 Bruce // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Sheepdog – you’re a cop? If so you’re doing a good job of illustrating why too often the cops are the problem. The message in your posts is that all we “civilians” have to kiss the cops’ asses or risk arrest. Sorry buddy, there aren’t two classes of citizens. If you want respect, try earning it.
Crowley let Gates get under his skin. He should have walked away but he chose force instead. Fine – if this is his worst mistake, maybe he’s not too bad of a cop. He certainly sounds like less of an arrogant jerk than Sheepdog.
61 dude // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Carlitos,
Here’s an older story right up your alley:
http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=16860
People, enjoy your right to free speech while you have it!
62 Dan // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Here’s an absolutely excellent piece written by Professor Maria Haberfeld about the Henry Louis Gates incident:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kj6eax
It’s the best piece yet I’ve seen.
63 Nemo // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Quoted from Dan’s link:
“The officers look at the scene of the event they were called to as their domain, their turf, their territory, where some order has been disturbed and they were called to restore it. ”
In short, the police come in, and believe that they are “king” of that particular castle, and the homeowner believes that he is “king” of his castle. Unpleasantness is inevitable when those mindsets clash and when the cops have the guns & the authority to arrest on a /whim/.
I doubt the cops have a problem with the situation, as it’s an arrest factory. Gotta make the numbers, after all.
64 Ariel // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Dan #62,
That it is a good piece, but it is also one sided. It misses that citizens die, or are seriously harmed, because of the mythos that police carry into a situation. And that is what she is writing about, a mythos that leads to citizen deaths. A mythos where police see a threat that isn’t there, a gun that doesn’t exist, an aggressive stance that isn’t (there is little difference between aggressive and defensive stances but distance and intent). We die, we get beaten bloody, for that mythos. She neglects that. This is telling:”People depend on police in a time of trouble but are quicker than lightning to judge harshly when things go wrong.” Because people die, people are beaten, people are wrongfully accused, people are ground up and spat out by the legal system of police unions, “don’t rock the boat” prosecutors, and more. She is too close to the problem to see it.
The mythos is a sword that cuts both ways.
Carlos, you may support unions, but police unions are an example of how it goes wrong.
65 ClintJCL // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Exactly. And never mind the fact that police die at a lower rate than garbage men, taxi drivers, fishermen, and farmers — most of who don’t go around shooting innocent unarmed people everytime they get scared.
Though farmers do have to shoot animals sometimes
66 Ariel // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM
ClintJCL #65,
Only because farmers can eat what they shoot.
I think the most chilling thing that has happened in my lifetime, in regards to the subject at hand, is the sudden and total emphasis on “officer safety”. This ultimately translates to “beat, tase, or shoot first, ask questions later”. Given the level of police alcoholism….
67 steveo // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM
When police come to your home, first of all, you don’t even have to go to the door. Second, you can talk to them through the window or a screen; you don’t have to go out on the porch, stoop, or (gasp) let them in the house. Most of all you don’t under any circumstances escalate the encounter by screaming, using profanity, calling the officer names (or his mama? Names), or threatening a civil rights law suit. And with moneyed (rich) people, like this professor, the best thing for the man to do is leave the officer on the porch, call his lawyer and let the lawyer talk to the officer. And being a Harvard professor, he could have called Alan Dershowitz, and I’m sure lawyer Dershowitz would have used whatever epithets and threats that he wanted against the policeman without the professor being involved
68 steveo // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Whenever a leo asks you for your ID (if you are not driving a car), try this. Tell the Leo that you aren’t very good at these kinds of things and would it be okay if you called your lawyer to talk to the officer. Then whatever the officer says next, after he is finished, say “Am I free to go.” Try it. Fifty bucks says you’ll never have to show your ID again.
69 steveo // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Carlos, I can tell you what law the professor broke. The rule to get the police encounter over with as soon as possible without getting arrested, tased, or beaten on. Use the magic word. Lawyer.
70 Carlos Miller // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Ariel,
You’re right. I do support unions. But I’ve beginning to see their negative aspects through fire and police unions.
I support unions for the working man because they maintain a balance in the power structure.
But when that power becomes too strong, then it is corrosive and corrupted.
71 Carlos Miller // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Dude,
Thanks for the link but I’ve been all over that story. In fact, I was the first one to show the actual video that Marilyn Parver shot.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/09/30/the-video-that-got-a-jetblue-passenger-escorted-off-the-plane-in-handcuffs/
72 Carlos Miller // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:37 AM
The problem with Sheepdog is that he is trained to believe we are all sheep.
And he is right to a point. Most people are sheep. Most people are just standing around waiting to be told what they can and can’t do.
But there is also a significant portion of the population that are not sheep.
I am not a sheep. And I know most of the people who read this blog are not sheep.
We know our rights and we are not afraid to stand up for them.
It might makes us stubborn but it doesn’t make us criminals.
73 Ariel // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Carlos #70,
Exactly. I’m not against unions either, for precisely the reason you gave, but I believe all of them need reining in to some degree. Police unions especially. Obama is backing down now on the “acted stupidly” because of the political clout of the unions. They are a stumbling block to real and effective change. They help make good cops bad, and bad cops worse.
74 Carlos Miller // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Billy Beck and Roger,
The insurrection is happening already. But it’s not happening in the traditional sense where people are taking to the streets in violence.
That would be a losing cause.
The real insurrection is happening as we speak. It is the people with their cell phone cameras documenting police abuses and uploading them to Youtube.
Everybody has a camera nowadays. And more and more people are learning their rights with that camera. And more and more cops are getting exposed because of those cameras.
This insurrection has just begun. It’s up to us to take it all the way.
75 discarted // Jul 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM
NPR has done a few stories this week about contempt of cop and how it is relevant to Gates’ arrest.
76 the bulldog // Jul 25, 2009 at 4:36 AM
ditto to everything NEMO said! btw, sharpton must be fondling himself over this one!
77 MillerTime // Jul 25, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Wrong again Carlos! Disorderly Conduct occurred when the Professor was outside of his home and caused a scene drawing a crowd. The Arrest Affidavit is sufficient to support the charge. However, this was not a wise use of the police officers discretion.
78 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Sheepdog is a great example of why you should only say four things to Leos or any agent of the state for that matter. 1) Am I under arrest? 2) Am I free to go? 3) I’d like to call my lawyer 4) I don’t consent to searches. The trouble is 95% of people arrest themselves because they don’t know their rights and/or how to deal with police encounters. I’ve never shown my ID to Leos outside of driving my car and I’ve never been arrested. When they ask me for my ID, I take out a business card of a well known defense lawyer in the area and ask the Leo if I’m free to go. It has never failed and I’ve never had to pay any legal fees.
79 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I had a police encounter in Orlando. My friend was driving. The officer took my friend’s DL, reg and Ins back to his cruiser. Leo must have been sitting in the police car for more than 15 minutes which I felt was a bit excessive. I asked my friend if he had any outstanding warrants or if he didn’t pay any tickets or whatever and he said no. then we had a discussion as to why the Leo pulled him over and we both weren’t really sure why. So, I got out of the truck, calmly with my hands in plain sight and walked back to talk to the Leo, who was sitting in the cruiser. I told him that I was going across the street to the convenience store to call my attorney. I started walking over there and he dropped my friend’s paperwork out of the window of the cruiser and drove away. I went back to the truck with my friend’s paperwork and he looked kind of stunned and he said “What the heck did you tell that cop?” “I told him that we weren’t the droids that he was looking for.”
80 Rebecca // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM
“Henry Louis Gates Jr. didn’t get arrested for breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct after he asked the cop for his name and badge number. We know they hate that.”
Don’t be ridiculous. Gates asked Crowley for his name and badge number multiple times, and it was provided multiple times. The way you present it, Gates asked for his name and was promptly arrested, and that just isn’t how it went down.
Don’t drag down your argument with this sort of silliness.
81 Kol. Klink // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM
People who photograph in public should strive for a short list of simple things:
1. Have a digital voice recorder with download capability, and record the whole encounter. Wal-Mart has one for about $35. Get a microphone for it for better recording quality.
2. Time the entire encounter from start to finish. (That means the second the officer approaches you. These encounters should last no more than 20 minutes. If your driving it means as soon as you see flashing lights, you start recording.)
3. Ask the following questions, and stay on those points specifically, and explicitly. Don’t waiver from them:
“Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?” (By wording it this way, you put the conversation on establishing the officer’s lawful reason for stopping you. If the officer wants to stated that the crime is “being a person of interest”, then even better since it will make future action on your part all the more easier, providing you stick to the program. No need to argue that it isn’t a crime).
“What is your reasonable suspicion?” (if the officer states to the effect that it’s the camera, then you might also ask if that is the sole basis of his RS, or if there is anything else to constitute RS. the reason for this is because a camera “in and of itself” is not RS.)
“Am I free to go?”
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Be polite, professional, and don’t argue or give him an attitude.
This should be all you say to an adversarial officer. Having a recording of the officer’s responses is helpful in that it gives you evidence backing up your side of the story (FIOA isn’t as important if you have the officer stating his RS on record, but may still be a good idea).
82 Kol. Klink // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I do want to thank Sheepdog for providing such good intelligence on the enemy. Good boy. Keep talking.
83 Michaelk42 // Jul 25, 2009 at 1:14 PM
@MillerTime
As I understand it, there was already a crowd of cops outside, actually. If anyone drew a crowd…
Got this link from @injusticenews on Twitter
Beyond Gates arrest, a growth of police power
Quote from:
“The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he’s the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s legislative division. “If you’ve got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen.”
…
Does that goon get paid extra if he manages to make it sound like a veiled threat?
84 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Police encounters while filming police activities take even special training in dealing with police encounters. You are filming police to act as a watchdog. Some Leos believe that this is a very provocative activity, other Leos don’t.
But when confronted by aggressive Leos during the filming what one has to do is to determine the boundary. There is always some type of boundary in the Leos’ mind. He isn’t correct most of the time, but we don’t really want to escalate the police encounter by refusing to obey his boundaries for now. We can challenge his boundary later in court without being arrested. I believe that we should move back a step at a time while filming, of course, to determine the boundary and then move the boundary up slowly if at all possible. All of this video, of course, makes for great drama on the Web. Most times, you’ll get much more interesting video with a boundary dispute, than if they just leave you alone.
Many of the video’s on this site and others, show Leos telling the videographer to stop recording, but rarely do I observe the videographer asking the Leo where is the boundary? Should I move here, should I move there? Should I move to Montreal?
Where do my 1st amendment rights start and where do they end? Keep questioning the Leo as to his knowledge of the 1st amendment while recording and stream the video if at all possible directly to the web or a server, in the event that they take the camera and attempt to delete the data.
If you really want to test your 1st amendment rights you can respectfully refuse to stop recording and ask if you are under arrest? Keep recording right up until you can’t record any longer. Keep asking if you are under arrest. If they tell you that you are under arrest, comply immediately because you don’t want to risk being arrested for anything legitimate. There are a number of fairly inexpensive cameras that can be purchased that are easily concealed. And you don’t need a conceal carry permit and that camera, as Carlos states, is certainly more deadly for that errant Leo than any gun that you can carry. You can record anyone in a public place in Fl without their permission (in courtrooms [not federal] you need the judge’s permission, but they will usually give it to you, if there aren’t 100 other people wanting to record) , you just can’t record a telephone conversation without letting the other party know that you are recording the phone conversation.
The bond in Fl for a second degree misdemeanor (disorderly conduct, loitering) is about $120, if they arrest you for obstruction without violence it is about $750. Bond depends on the circuit. If you do record police activities, it is a good idea to have an agreement with a local bail bondsman in advance and they will bond you out within a couple hours. If you are arrested for a misdemeanor, traffic violation or local ordinance, they cannot strip search you at the jail. You’ll probably just be kept in a holding area until your bondsman can arrange bail, usually with a phone call. Get your property back and go back and start recording again. Happy recording. Just remember “WE WILL RECORD!!!”
85 Ariel // Jul 25, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Steveo #83,
A very good insightful comment. Here comes the butt monkey to others here: know your state’s particular view on recording telephone conversations. Arizona, for example, allows any participant to record without the knowledge of the others. Someone not a participant cannot, but then that’s wiretapping.
Caveat: I have no idea how jurisdiction applies if you’re recording in AZ while talking to someone in FL. By the place of origin of the call? Federal law? Anyone know?
86 Robert Watt // Jul 25, 2009 at 7:20 PM
“They give me a stick they give me a gun they pay me 50 gs to have some fun” taken from the Christopher report which investagated the LA pi police (& their e-commuctions) after Rodney King. This was my favorite cop poetry of some baad stuff that was published!
87 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 7:49 PM
MillerTime #76
I wouldn’t normally agree with MillerTime but Gates kept talking (screaming?) even though the Leos said that Gates was free to go.
Talking to a Leo after he has told you that you are free to go is a lot like a base runner arguing with the umpire over a safe call at the plate that has gone in his favor after a close tag.
“Are you sure I’m safe, you dumb umpire. What are you blind and your mama?”
88 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
ClintJCL #53
Yeah, I guess we can say just about any type of profanity, epithets or whatever language we want to a Leo, but I just don’t think that this is an effective way to go about the work of civil disobedience. Watch the movie, Gandhi. He was able to have the entire British Empire leave India, by practicing non-confrontational polite civil disobedience.
Gandhi said, “What you cannot do is accept injustice from anyone. You must make the injustice visible”
We can make the injustice visible with two of the greatest inventions of the 20th and 21st centuries. The Web and the video camera. Practice it, politely in a non confrontational manner and you will be doing the work of great men.
89 JLA // Jul 25, 2009 at 8:15 PM
@steveo #86
Gates was free to go? Gates was in his own home where he had just arrived from a long overseas trip. Where was he supposed to go? He didn’t have anywhere to go. It was the police who were free to go. They were the ones who chose not to go when they easily could have.
90 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
JlA #88
“Free to go” is really a condition of being rather than a literal translation. To a Leo, free to go means were done, I’m not going to arrest you, see you later.
I was put upon by Leos once in my home and they started peppering me with questions. I told them I wanted to see my lawyer. The head Leo said “What do you need a lawyer for.” I said, “Well, would it be ok for me to go over to his office right now?” He said, “You’ve been free to go ever since we had this meeting”. I got up to leave and they went to the door, I let them out and that was that. “Free to go” is just Leospeak.
91 JLA // Jul 25, 2009 at 9:00 PM
@steveo #89
Fourth Amendment:
This is the most troubling part of this case which you may not seem to grasp. The home is that one and only piece of soil on this planet that a private citizen has the right to feel the most secure and protected against his own government. These police officers violated the home of Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. They viloated the trust of the Fourth Amendment.
A private citizen’s home is his sacred sanctuary. He holds his home in the same manner and feeling in his heart the same way a Christian feels about a church, a Jew feels about a synagogue, a Muslim feels about a mosque. It is the one place where a man can say, without fear of retribution, to the President of the United States all the way down to the lowliest government bureaucrat, “I am King here, you are not.”
These officers did not violate the home of Prof. Gates as police officers as much as they violated his home as men. Men who have their own homes and feel they same way about them as Prof. Gates and you and I. They did not act as police officers nor as men. They acted like unthinking, uncaring, unfeeling government bureaucrats.
92 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 9:41 PM
JLA #90
Read my #67. Gates invited them in the house. Once he has done this. Hang up the 4th amendment. He waived his rights.
93 JLA // Jul 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM
@steveo 91
Read my post @90 again. I’m not arguing legalities. I’m arguing plain fucking common sense. There was absolutely no fucking reason at all to make this arrest. Gates was not physically harming anyone. Gates was not stealing anything. Gates was not an imminent threat to anyone. Gates was not a suspect of any criminal activity. Gates did not pose an immediate danger to himself or anyone else. If the police had simply walked away absolutely nobody would have cared. As a matter of fact walking away probably would have calmed Gates down more than anything else. He wasn’t going to go anywhere. I’m sure the police had no reason to believe that if they walked away Gates wasn’t going to run down the street after them. If any situation called for “discretionary enforcement” it was this one.
And here’s the real kicker: Who’s going to pay for all the eventual lawsuits that’s going to come from all this? The citizens of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The same citizens that pay the salaries of the Cambridge police. Breaking news: Arrests actual costs taxpayers money. In situations where the police don’t have to make an arrest, the taxpayers appreciate them exercising discretion.
94 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM
JLA #92
We are really just arguing the same issue. Much to do about nothing. You are saying the Leo should have walked and I’m saying Gates should have called his Harvard trained lawyer, Barack Obama, as soon as the Leo stepped on his porch. If Gates had any sense of humor, he would have told the Leo, hold on while I get my lawyer, Obama on the phone. I’ve never said Gates should have shown the Leo ID, I’ve never said Gates should have let the Leo into his home, I’m just saying that with civilized men there is a much better way to handle these encounters.
95 JLA // Jul 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM
@steveo 93
Read the first paragraph of my post @46. I’ve always thought that Gates was pompous asshole. But as far as I know there’s nothing illegal about being a pompous asshole. I’m not excusing his behavior towards the police. From what I’ve seen of Prof. Gates I can only suspect that his behavior was probably very immature and inappropriate. But immature and inappropriate does not equal illegal.
96 steveo // Jul 25, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Time to ask the experts. I like this police encounter educational video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
97 JLA // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:04 PM
@steveo 96
Thank you for that video, steveo. That was hillarious!
98 CHN // Jul 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Here’s a fantastic blog post by a cop who has a completely different perspective on “contempt of cop”:
http://law-chronicles.blogspot.com/2009/07/dont-tread-on-me.html
99 Nemo // Jul 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Yeah, that’s a good article. Gives one insight into the mind of a cop with a hair-trigger approach to law enforcement: treating him with respect is high on his priority list. Treating citizens (I don’t care for their ‘civilians’ lable) with respect is never mentioned.
His substitution of “command presence” for “his pride” is telling, too. He believes himself to be large & in charge – but his pride isn’t vulnerable, oh my, no.
What a lovely ball of self-justification. A primer on poor behavior while staying within the letter of the law in order to guard his ego and enforce his pet peeves and other feelings under the color of law.
Feh. No wonder he gets called a “fucking pig”.
100 Pauly // Jul 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sgt-james-crowleys-nightmare-is-all-too-real/
Read this article and stop being ignorant.. the arrest was legally justified.
101 MC // Jul 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I agree. Excellent entry by Johnny Law.
To Nemo #99:
How can you respect someone who’s pissing in public like a dog?
I think your comment nicely demonstrates what’s wrong with this country and why crime is escalating in so many urban areas. People would rather respect the creep pissing in their alley than respect the police officer who tries to stop it. It’s “cool” to hate the police, even if that means letting your own neighborhood turn into a ghetto.
You also clearly don’t understand the idea of “command presence” but then again you’re too busy putting your own words in someone else’s mouth.
Too bad you don’t like being called “a civilian” but you are one. Take it up with the people who write dictionaries.
102 Michaelk42 // Jul 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
@MC
We’ve been over that before.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/06/10/police-release-dashcam-video-of-72-year-old-woman-being-tased/#comment-12460
To sum up: dictionary definition is informal, changed over time – doesn’t mean much. Legal definition: Not in the military, you’re a civilian. U.S. Department of Defense classifies police as civilians as well.
Some people need to learn the difference between “command presence” and simply being a dick.
103 Nemo // Jul 26, 2009 at 5:16 PM
To MC:
How can you respect someone who’s a member of an organization that regularly shoots, kills, tases, beats, perjures, lies, harasses, and (as Micheal points out) misuses the term “civilian”?
I will respect the LEOs that earn my respect. There’s at least one on my local Force who’s done that, and he’ll get my repect until he proves unworthy of it, if ever.
The rest of the cops will get the chance to earn it, but anger, aggression, arrogance, and emotional enforcment of the law (such as the guy linked to admittely practices) won’t cut it with me. I don’t respect assholes, even the ones in uniform or elected office.
One local pig *shot and killed* a guy he had a dispute with some years back. While off-duty, he entered and left the guy’s place of employment, went to his car, re-entered with a gun, and executed the victim. Fortunatly, that was too much to ‘sweep under the rug’, and that pig went to jail, hopefully never to besmirch the uniform we would all like to be able to look up to. There’s another case of emotions overring professionalism. And if you don’t think that a thug in uniform, one who’s killed a man for no more reason than emotion, is a pig, then there’s no convincing you that the sun actually rises in the east – your mind is made up.
Oh, and please note – the guy you mentioned didn’t go to jail for pissing in public, he went to jail because he called the cop a “fucking pig”. The blogger said so himself:
“I stopped and got off my bike with the intention of chewing the guy out and sending him on his way. ”
Get your facts straight.
104 Amanda // Jul 26, 2009 at 11:16 PM
In California state law makes a distinction between civilians and sworn law enforcement officers. A sworn LEO is not a civilian per California law.
105 Michaelk42 // Jul 26, 2009 at 11:43 PM
@Amanda
A sworn civilian law enforcement officer.
Not a military police officer, for instance.
Semantics is entertaining.
106 schmeckendeugler // Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
This certainly is a hot topic. a lot of people weighing in.
I have no comment.
107 You gotta read this email sent a by Boston cop // Jul 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Here it is
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/justin_barrett_full_email_072909
108 GusyCoese // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:56 PM
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said it successfully test-fired the longest-range missiles [url=raz]canadian pharmacy Soma order[/url] in its arsenal on Monday, weapons masterly of carrying a warhead and striking Israel, U.S. military bases in the Medial East, and parts of Europe.
109 theopay // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Hello guys!
As i’m new here, i just want to say hello.
By the way – bb code seems to feat bad?
cheers,
______________
theopay
[url=http://forums.coolchaser.com/users/5230]buy Colon Cleanse[/url]
http://forums.coolchaser.com/users/5230
110 FrawOwes // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I could agree in 100%.
He’s the best portion if this.
cheers,
______________
FrawOwes
[url=http://blogcastrepository.com/members/mikeyacai.aspx]order acai[/url]
Leave a Comment