The sleeze keeps right on oozing

[Care4all]

You might want to ask your lawyer about that care. I'm fairly certain you are wrong.

He/she is wrong. I would like to see Care try it the next time he/she is pulled over and see how far he/she gets.

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

 

[Missourian]

You might want to ask your lawyer about that care. I'm fairly certain you are wrong.

He/she is wrong. I would like to see Care try it the next time he/she is pulled over and see how far he/she gets.

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

Care, this is silly.

How else is Officer Crowley supposed to determine if Gates is who he claims to be?

Take his word for it???

 

[Care4all]

He/she is wrong. I would like to see Care try it the next time he/she is pulled over and see how far he/she gets.

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

Care, this is stupid.

How else is Officer Crowley supposed to determine if Gates is who he claims to be?

Take his word for it???

just an fyi i come from an era, where we did not have id's with pics on them or any kind of id at all that was carried on us if you didn't drive....my mother in law was 65 before she got her first id, a drivers license....that's when she learned how to drive....65!!!!

i begin with this, because the answer to your question seems very easy to me....

all he had to do, is take the name mr gates gave him and run it through their computers to see if a mr gates lived at the address on ware street...

THE ROBBER would NOT have opened the door for the uniformed police officer....

The robber would not have traversed the house to his telephone to call his boss at harvard university....

his harvard id did not have an address on it, i looked it up on the internet...so when he called in the name from the id, there was NO address either, so what could he have gathered from that....? just a name missourian.....right?

WITHIN 1 MINUTE of crowley knocking on the door of mr gates to when officer crowley placed the call to dispatch giving them mr. gates' full name and for them to call harvard university police because he was a professor there.....

1 MINUTE ELAPSED before crowley had the gates id in hand....according to the police recordings released....that doesn't seem uncooperative to me, does it to you? i mean honestly?

i couldn't have found my own drivers licence in that short of a time...!!!! but i don't work anymore so it's not like i keep my purse at breast....but still!

so again, to answer your question, by law we only have to identify ourselves by name to the police in 12 states only, massachusetts is not one of them....

my era believes the police are the GOVERNMENT and the government has no right to question us or demand anything from us, unless they legally have probable cause to believe we are committing a crime....

such is not the case with mr gates....he was not suspect....no one even established any crime and there were no signs of a crime....story over....the cop leaves....period.

otherwise, any cop can have any person call in a possible break in of any residence so they can send cops to insist on your id, when you are absolutely doing nothing wrong and are in your own home....?

what i am trying to say, is what is to stop cops who have been watching someone, setting that person up, for them to enter his home without warrant, by having someone call in a fake B and E? or an angry neighbor calling it in....?

the cop has to go to the scene, i understand, but the cop HAS TO USE HIS JUDGMENT in assessing the situation looking for signs to confirm the witness's concern or debunk it in the first few seconds....Crowley did this in less than 60 seconds....he is ''led'' to believe that mr gates lives there....according to his call in to dispatch....he should have never entered the home and left right then....that is, after he showed gates his official state identification card that gates asked for...which is REQUIRED under massachusetts law in this kind of situation... imo.

 

[chanel]

Exactly. And it is standard operating procedure to run a check.Suppose there was an estranged Mrs Gates who had a restraining order against him. Even if he technically owned the house he was not to be on the property. Angry ex husbands break into battered wives' homes every day in this country. If the hypothetical wife was hurt or killed, who would be to blame, THE COPS who were there for crying out loud! Just show the fucking ID if you have nothing to hide.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You might want to ask your lawyer about that care. I'm fairly certain you are wrong.

He/she is wrong. I would like to see Care try it the next time he/she is pulled over and see how far he/she gets.

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

You stated you didn't have to produce ID when requested by an officer of the law. Now you're backpeddling. Typical response from a kool-aid drinker.

Crowley had his ID pinned to his shirt all one needed to do was READ!

Show me the statute under Ma. law that states you do not need to to produce ID was when requested by an officer of the law.

 

[Care4all]

Exactly. And it is standard operating procedure to run a check.Suppose there was an estranged Mrs Gates who had a restraining order against him. Even if he technically owned the house he was not to be on the property. Angry ex husbands break into battered wives' homes every day in this country. If the hypothetical wife was hurt or killed, who would be to blame, THE COPS who were there for crying out loud! Just show the fucking ID if you have nothing to hide.

how THICK can one be?

Emphasis!
MR GATES GAVE OFFICER CROWLEY HIS HARVARD ID, WITHIN 60 SECONDS OF Officer Crowley BEING AT THE Gates RESIDENCE....

got that part of the FACTS yet?

and on your other speculations, how would a harvard id with no address be any different from giving his name in the estranged wife/battered wife scenario????????????

care

 

[Care4all]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

 

[chanel]

The cop had to run it through his computer. How thick can you be?

 

[Missourian]

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

Care, this is stupid.

How else is Officer Crowley supposed to determine if Gates is who he claims to be?

Take his word for it???

just an fyi i come from an era, where we did not have id's with pics on them or any kind of id at all that was carried on us if you didn't drive....my mother in law was 65 before she got her first id, a drivers license....that's when she learned how to drive....65!!!!

i begin with this, because the answer to your question seems very easy to me....

all he had to do, is take the name mr gates gave him and run it through their computers to see if a mr gates lived at the address on ware street...


THE ROBBER would NOT have opened the door for the uniformed police officer....

The robber would not have traversed the house to his telephone to call his boss at harvard university....

his harvard id did not have an address on it, i looked it up on the internet...so when he called in the name from the id, there was NO address either, so what could he have gathered from that....? just a name missourian.....right?

WITHIN 1 MINUTE of crowley knocking on the door of mr gates to when officer crowley placed the call to dispatch giving them mr. gates' full name and for them to call harvard university police because he was a professor there.....

1 MINUTE ELAPSED before crowley had the gates id in hand....according to the police recordings released....that doesn't seem uncooperative to me, does it to you? i mean honestly?

i couldn't have found my own drivers licence in that short of a time...!!!! but i don't work anymore so it's not like i keep my purse at breast....but still!

so again, to answer your question, by law we only have to identify ourselves by name to the police in 12 states only, massachusetts is not one of them....

my era believes the police are the GOVERNMENT and the government has no right to question us or demand anything from us, unless they legally have probable cause to believe we are committing a crime....

such is not the case with mr gates....he was not suspect....no one even established any crime and there were no signs of a crime....story over....the cop leaves....period.

otherwise, any cop can have any person call in a possible break in of any residence so they can send cops to insist on your id, when you are absolutely doing nothing wrong and are in your own home....?

what i am trying to say, is what is to stop cops who have been watching someone, setting that person up, for them to enter his home without warrant, by having someone call in a fake B and E? or an angry neighbor calling it in....?

the cop has to go to the scene, i understand, but the cop HAS TO USE HIS JUDGMENT in assessing the situation looking for signs to confirm the witness's concern or debunk it in the first few seconds....Crowley did this in less than 60 seconds....he is ''led'' to believe that mr gates lives there....according to his call in to dispatch....he should have never entered the home and left right then....that is, after he showed gates his official state identification card that gates asked for...which is REQUIRED under massachusetts law in this kind of situation... imo.

I hope the police never adhere to your 'theory of policing'.

Your entire argument is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

1) The house was a rental. Gates name was not in the computer. The police had to verify who he was so they could contact the owners (Harvard University) which was handled by Harvard Security.

2) It is an assumption to believe the person who answers the door is a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

3) It is assumption to believe that a robber would not answer the door...cops cannot assume.

4) It is assumption to believe that a robber wouldn't know the name of a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

5) Gates was suspected of a crime...breaking and entering.

6) The police need proof when investigating a crime of who it is they are confronting.

7) I have no idea if the 1 minute is accurate, but the point is moot. Gates was not arrested for failure to produce ID.

 

[Care4all]

What did the cops do before most people began to drive, when people did not carry id of any kind?

Why is id so important?

Why was the harvard id acceptable at all?(I'm surprised you all didn't say the Harvard Id was not good enough?)

There are many questions...

 

[chanel]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

How the hell did she cash a check or open an account? How the hell could she buy booze? This is 2009. Post 9/11. You can't even rent a hotel room without photo ID. My children have had passports since they were babies. You are being ridiculous.

 

[Sweet Willy]

He/she is wrong. I would like to see Care try it the next time he/she is pulled over and see how far he/she gets.

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

You stated you didn't have to produce ID when requested by an officer of the law. Now you're backpeddling. Typical response from a kool-aid drinker.

Crowley had his ID pinned to his shirt all one needed to do was READ!

Show me the statute under Ma. law that states you do not need to to produce ID was when requested by an officer of the law.

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

 

[Sweet Willy]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

How the hell did she cash a check or open an account? How the hell could she buy booze? This is 2009. Post 9/11. You can't even rent a hotel room without photo ID. My children have had passports since they were babies. You are being ridiculous.

No, she isn't being ridiculous. There is no law that any citizen of the US must have any form of ID, other than a name. That is all you are required to have, a name. If you are born, the birth must be registered and we require that a name be supplied. That is all the law requires. If you want to drive, you need a drivers license. A private bank or hotel can require whatever they want. They could require you to have a pink teddy bear in order to do business with them, if they wanted. But the government can not require that you do anything other than have a name and say it when asked, and even then, in some case, you have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself.

 

[Missourian]

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Just to keep the debate honest, what would be the result of failing to provide identification or ones name during the course of a robbery investigation?

 

[Care4all]

Care, this is stupid.

How else is Officer Crowley supposed to determine if Gates is who he claims to be?

Take his word for it???

just an fyi i come from an era, where we did not have id's with pics on them or any kind of id at all that was carried on us if you didn't drive....my mother in law was 65 before she got her first id, a drivers license....that's when she learned how to drive....65!!!!

i begin with this, because the answer to your question seems very easy to me....

all he had to do, is take the name mr gates gave him and run it through their computers to see if a mr gates lived at the address on ware street...


THE ROBBER would NOT have opened the door for the uniformed police officer....

The robber would not have traversed the house to his telephone to call his boss at harvard university....

his harvard id did not have an address on it, i looked it up on the internet...so when he called in the name from the id, there was NO address either, so what could he have gathered from that....? just a name missourian.....right?

WITHIN 1 MINUTE of crowley knocking on the door of mr gates to when officer crowley placed the call to dispatch giving them mr. gates' full name and for them to call harvard university police because he was a professor there.....

1 MINUTE ELAPSED before crowley had the gates id in hand....according to the police recordings released....that doesn't seem uncooperative to me, does it to you? i mean honestly?

i couldn't have found my own drivers licence in that short of a time...!!!! but i don't work anymore so it's not like i keep my purse at breast....but still!

so again, to answer your question, by law we only have to identify ourselves by name to the police in 12 states only, massachusetts is not one of them....

my era believes the police are the GOVERNMENT and the government has no right to question us or demand anything from us, unless they legally have probable cause to believe we are committing a crime....

such is not the case with mr gates....he was not suspect....no one even established any crime and there were no signs of a crime....story over....the cop leaves....period.

otherwise, any cop can have any person call in a possible break in of any residence so they can send cops to insist on your id, when you are absolutely doing nothing wrong and are in your own home....?

what i am trying to say, is what is to stop cops who have been watching someone, setting that person up, for them to enter his home without warrant, by having someone call in a fake B and E? or an angry neighbor calling it in....?

the cop has to go to the scene, i understand, but the cop HAS TO USE HIS JUDGMENT in assessing the situation looking for signs to confirm the witness's concern or debunk it in the first few seconds....Crowley did this in less than 60 seconds....he is ''led'' to believe that mr gates lives there....according to his call in to dispatch....he should have never entered the home and left right then....that is, after he showed gates his official state identification card that gates asked for...which is REQUIRED under massachusetts law in this kind of situation... imo.

I hope the police never adhere to your 'theory of policing'.

Your entire argument is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

1) The house was a rental. Gates name was not in the computer. The police had to verify who he was so they could contact the owners (Harvard University) which was handled by Harvard Security.

the police had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information....do you understand that? They had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information...there was no sign of a breakin, mr gates opened the door to speak with him, mr gates was an elder man with a cane and not 2 black hoods with a back pack as crowley lied and said Whalen told him... if was a false alarm or a false report....but Mr Gates DID OBLIGE him and did give him his ID.

And as far as being a renter and having no record of such, that is simply hogwash....cops can get the names of the renters at ANY ADDRESS, it is part of their system...most in Boston are NOT owners, but renters...it's simply ridiculous to believe such missourian...

2) It is an assumption to believe the person who answers the door is a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

Yes it can be assumed and SHOULD BE ASSUMED by any cop.

3) It is assumption to believe that a robber would not answer the door...cops cannot assume.

Again, yes they can assess the situation, they do it every day for every incident, they get paid to think on their feet and they are good at it...AND Crowly's ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION was that Gates was the lawful resident of the home....if Crowley assessed that he was possibly NOT the lawful resident of the home, HE WOULD HAVE REPORTED SUCH to dispatch missourian, he would have NOT reported that he was led to believe Gates was the lawful resident of the home. He made this assessment within the first minute there....and his instincts, his gumshoe ability, was correct.

4) It is assumption to believe that a robber wouldn't know the name of a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

He already did make the assessment that gates belonged there....the 911 caller was not certain a crime was even committed, only called it in cuz some old lady asked her to....

As I stated, cops are paid to make good, sound, assumptions with their assessments, every day they are on the beat.


5) Gates was suspected of a crime...breaking and entering.

simply not true....there was no description of the suspects, there was no crime that was committed to be a suspect of....there was a call that said they thought they saw one man using his shoulder to get the door opened...THATS IT.

6) The police need proof when investigating a crime of who it is they are confronting.

There was no crime....there was an investigator to determine such, and within a minute the investigating officer KNEW there was no crime based on his sound observations..

7) I have no idea if the 1 minute is accurate, but the point is moot. Gates was not arrested for failure to produce ID.

true, he wasn't, and even if he hadn't shown it, he would not have been arrested, because it is not against the law for him not to show the police his id if he even had one.

He was arrested for Disorderly conduct after he listened to crowley and followed him outside as crowley ASKED HIM TO DO TWICE....immediately before going outside.

And it was a FALSE CHARGE and ARREST, if you look up the laws in massachusetts and review the supreme court cases on disorderly conduct it is EVIDENT, PLAIN AS DAY, that crowley should not have charged him or arrested him.

He WAS FALSELY ARRESTED....whether crowley is innocent and did this by accident or on purpose, is yet to be found out, and probably never will be.....

care

 

[Care4all]

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Just to keep the debate honest, what would be the result of failing to provide identification or ones name during the course of a robbery investigation?

There was no robbery investigation, there was a POSSIBLE BREAKING AND ENTERING investigation...

POSSIBLE, not even one that is known to have occurred, but a possible breaking and entering.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

If a frog had wings. You're not seriously going to base your argument on "what if's... are you?

 

[Sweet Willy]

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Just to keep the debate honest, what would be the result of failing to provide identification or ones name during the course of a robbery investigation?

You are asking two different questions here and they are not easily answered without more detail.

The two important issues are "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause".

If it is a robbery investigation, meaning that a robbery has been confirmed to have happened, the next question is "why me?" Why are you asking me about this investigation? First, there must be reasonable suspicion that I may have been involved or have information about the crime. If you can establish that reasonable suspicion, you have satisfied a "Terry stop" and I am required to tell you my name or be arrested on a relevant statute for impeding a police investigation. However, this does not imply that after a robbery, police may go door to door or stand on the corner, taking names. They must satisfy reasonalbe suspicion to ask for your name.

As far as a photo ID or any form of evidence to support what you say your name is, there is no such requirement and an arrest for failure to produce and ID is unlawful, anywhere in the US.

 

[Care4all]

Mr Gates was arrested at 4:25 seconds on the police tape, from when crowley got there to the Gates home and crowley called dispatch to send in "the WAGON".

 

[Care4all]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

If a frog had wings. You're not seriously going to base your argument on "what if's... are you?

SURE, WHY NOT?

That's what everyone else is doing?

ID is NOT REQUIRED by LAW TO HAVE in massachusetts.....

do you understand that?