<p>
This is only part of the facts as I have read them. The other version of the facts is that Gates was hostile to the police from the beginning, that he refused to follow their instructions from the beginning, and that after the officer checked his ID and was leaving, Gates chose to go outside and continue mouthing off to the police. Probably, the police should have shrugged it off, but why did Gates need to escalate the confrontation?</p>
<p>Obama, the biased jackass, conveniently omits to the nation anything about Gates being belligerent in his rendition of the facts.</p>
<p>Where’s the police union to condemn him? The appropriate response for a federal President here is “no comment.” This is an issue between local constables and a citizen.</p>
<p>I don’t agree at all this arrest was illegal. The officers had an option to arrest him based on his causing a scene during investigation of a potential crime. There may be an optimal solution, but neither option (arrest or calm him down/no arrest) is illegal or wrong.</p>
<p>Hunt, Gates felt that his rights had been violated, and he wanted the information of the officer’s identify in order to file a complaint—which he was legally entitled to do. Just because he may have “mouthed off” does not mean his legal rights should have been trampled. And they most certainly were!</p>
<p>And by the way, Prof. Gates believed that stepping out of his house as the officer initially demanded would have made him vulnerable to arrest on “suspicion” of burglary, no questions asked, whereas staying put in his residence provided him with a certain amount of protection from illegal seizure. Whether this is actually true or not, I can’t say. Perhaps Hanna would know. One thing is certain. The very moment he actually did step onto his porch, he was indeed seized and illegally arrested. What’s to say arresting this man was not the objective of the police officer in question from the very start?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m sorry - because he is standing on his property, he is entitled to harrass a police officer such that people standing on public property can hear him? He’s protected from arrest?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Big surprise, there:rolleyes: What is the legal definition of “causing a scene”, cressent?—anything the police convenient deem meets the definition, apparently. My God, that’s a lot of power. The Cop on the street can make the law, break the law, and act as judge, jury and in too many cases, executioner—as one did when he shot a boy dead in his own driveway. But, I guess he “caused a scene” by verbally defending the honor of his mother, and thereby “got what was coming to him”.</p>
<p>What law did Gates break, Cressent? Honestly, which one? Burglary? Breaking and entering? Assaulting a Police Officer? Public Endangerment? By the time of his arrest, the fact had long been established that no crime had been committed. The “investigation” was over. Gate’s “crime” was apparently, “mouthing off” by insisting on seeing the officer’s ID. How dare he think he was entitled to that information? How dare he expect that as a law abiding citizen who had committed no crime (a fact well established almost immediately), he was entitled to be treated with courtesy and dignity?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I disagree. The officer had a judgement call on disorderly conduct. He had a prima facie case that Gates was disturbing the peace and behaving in a disruptive manner shouting all the racist talk.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>To me, this is all very simple. Professor Gates broke no laws. I know perfectly well how unwise it is (from the viewpoint of self-preservation) to dare to question a police officer’s actions or authority. That doesn’t make it illegal. Nor does publicly embarrassing a police officer constitute “disturbing the peace.” That’s nonsense; it’s just a typical catchall used by some cops who have no other excuse for arresting someone. </p>
<p>The only lawbreaker here was the police officer. Period; end of story. No matter what spin anyone here tries to put on it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Man, when this board become full of anarchists?
The officer applied the law as it is written. If you don’t like the leeway granted to them, change the law. Don’t complain about how they apply it in gray situations.</p>
<p>I manifestly disagree with your seemingly strenuous closed book conclusion that the officer is the lawbreaker.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. He has the right to loudly protest their treatment of him. It’s called free speech, even though the Cambridge Gestapo apparently don’t recognize it. I do not think that citizens who have not committed any crime have a duty to kowtow to the police. He cooperated by showing ID. That’s all he was required to do, IMHO. And by the way, the “public property” was less than 20 feet away, judging by the photo. Someone simply speaking in a normal tone of voice would be heard. Since when is being audible over your property line a crime?</p>
<p>And BTW, DonnaL is a lawyer. I’m inclined to think that she probably knows what she’s talking about.</p>
<p>Free speech is not absolute. One may not disturb the peace or be disruptive in a public place. Judgement call to arrest him? Yes. Inappropriate to the point of illegality? Not a chance. Inappropriate to the point of a reprimand? I don’t even think that. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Since when are government officials sacrosanct? Since when is it illegal to criticize them? Not in our democracy, thankfully. He wasn’t disturbing the peace in a public place. He was on his own property and the only thing he was “guilty” of was raising his voice. No matter how you twist and turn, the man did not commit a crime, nor was he about to commit a crime. There was NO reason to arrest him.</p>
<p>Maybe you just want to live in a more authoritarian society.</p>
<p>Oh, right, I’m an anarchist. If that’s the best you can come up with, we’re all wasting our time here. The only “peace” Prof. Gates was disturbing was the police officer’s (namely, his desire not to have his authority questioned) – and that doesn’t cut it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>With you, that’s all you deserve. </p>
<p>In regards to the case, my stance remains the officer had a prima facie case to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct. It’s in the books as a judgement call; officers are trained to use their judgement in such situations. It’s in the gray area; anything in the gray area you can’t question their judgement on something as serious as illegality.</p>
<p>The fact that he was on his property is immaterial to the charge for which he was arrested. Certainly people can disturb the peace while on their own property – I have neighbors which prove this frequently, alas.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s illegal when it rises to the level of disorderly conduct. He raised his voice and was belligerent in a public area. He by the way had no proof his racism accusations had any basis. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ll say again it is a judgement call. You say there was 0%. I say there was more than 0%, a lot more than 0%. He could have started a riot spewing things like “this is what happens in America.” Shame on him.</p>
<p>owlice, they just don’t like the police here when the other side is a liberal arts professor.</p>
<p>Why is he shouting if it’s just a conversation between owner and police officer? Because he’s trying to put public attention on what he thinks (without any proof other than his own lame insecurities) is a racist police officer. That’s disturbing the peace.</p>
<p>The picture in this news article is pretty disturbing–three cops? Handcuffs? Gates is pushing 60 and walks with a cane. I think the cops should have diffused the situation and moved on; there was no point in arresting Gates and bringing him to the police station. According to the article, Gates denies he was shouting at the cops and that he wouldn’t show them an ID.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Imagine this: Man really does burglarize house. Neighbor calls police. Police officer arrives. Black homeowner shows his ID and orders police officer to leave. Officer apologizes and leaves. Actual burglar then kills black homeowner.</p>
<p>Next day’s headline: Black Man Murdered After Being Abandoned by Police</p>
<p>Next day’s op-ed piece: Police to African-Americans: No Protection for You</p>
<p>The police officer was doing his job. Would that he had had more patience with the man accusing him of racism. But he was just doing his job.</p>
<p>EDIT: But to be clear, I think the way it was handled afterward was really, really stupid.</p>