The Stupidity Of The Gates Arrest

[editec]

The racism aspect is not as interesting to me as is the fact that so many people seem to be okay with overlooking the implications of what allowing police to behave as if we lived in a fascist state mean.

Do you honestly believe that this issue would be so much on this board had GATES not been a BLACK man?
I rather doubt it would to be honest.

As I said above, I was speaking about what was most interesting to me.

If I overstated or incorrectly stated your position, please accept my sincere apologies.

That you think I would not be interested had Gates been anything but black is not terribly interesting to me.

Really?

That's interesting.

Thanks for keeping me informed about what doesn't interest you.

 

[Care4all]

The rights of mr Gates were infringed on..that's my issue and as anguille, I would be here arguing the argument that this arrest was unlawful and unconstitutional, even if he were white.

 

[Anguille]

]Really?

That's interesting.

Thanks for keeping me informed about what doesn't interest you.

Did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning?

 

[Missourian]

I see...the Gates theory of racism prevails...anyone who questions him is a racist.

I must have missed the memo.

 

[KittenKoder]

I see...the Gates theory of racism prevails...anyone who questions him is a racist.

I must have missed the memo.

You missed more than one, anyone who questions the Obama-moron is also racist, remember?

 

[Care4all]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

 

[Anguille]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

Some people can't get past it.

 

[Missourian]

The rights of mr Gates were infringed on..that's my issue and as anguille, I would be here arguing the argument that this arrest was unlawful and unconstitutional, even if he were white.

You are absolutely wrong Care.


Even using your own definition:

A "disorderly person" is defined as one who:

* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or

* recklessly creates a risk thereof
​

If causing a public disturbance as Gates did isn't disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, I don't know what is.

 

[Missourian]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

Some people can't get past it.

 

[manifold]

Wow.

You guys are still on about this huh?

 

[Anguille]

If causing a public disturbance as Gates did isn't disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, I don't know what is.

But one thing is clear: Gates did not violate any law. Under Massachusetts law, which the police officer was supposedly enforcing, yelling at a police officer is not illegal.
There are clear decisions of the Massachusetts courts holding that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct. And yet that is exactly what Gates was arrested for.
The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.
In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.
So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.




Adam Winkler: Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest

 

[DiveCon]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

the DA even says you are WRONG and that it was a LAWFUL arrest

 

[Anguille]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

the DA even says you are WRONG and that it was a LAWFUL arrest

Link?

 

[DiveCon]

If causing a public disturbance as Gates did isn't disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, I don't know what is.

But one thing is clear: Gates did not violate any law. Under Massachusetts law, which the police officer was supposedly enforcing, yelling at a police officer is not illegal.
There are clear decisions of the Massachusetts courts holding that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct. And yet that is exactly what Gates was arrested for.
The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.
In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.
So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.




Adam Winkler: Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest

that just some moron on the internet opinion
means nothing since the DA said it was a lawful arrest

 

[DiveCon]

professor gates appeared to be calling the race card from the onset... I have never denied such....

but this has NOTHING AT ALL in determining whether Crowley made an unlawful arrest and infringed on the rights of Gates...

Race has never been part of my thinking process on determining this....

the DA even says you are WRONG and that it was a LAWFUL arrest

Link?

its been posted

 

[KittenKoder]

the DA even says you are WRONG and that it was a LAWFUL arrest

Link?

its been posted

... and ignored ... as usual. The people who whine the most about links seem to be the ones to ignore them the most ... odd huh?

 

[Missourian]

If causing a public disturbance as Gates did isn't disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, I don't know what is.

But one thing is clear: Gates did not violate any law. Under Massachusetts law, which the police officer was supposedly enforcing, yelling at a police officer is not illegal.
There are clear decisions of the Massachusetts courts holding that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct. And yet that is exactly what Gates was arrested for.
The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.
In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.
So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.




Adam Winkler: Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest

Adam Winkler, who ever that is, is wrong.

Model Penal Code s. 250.2: "(1) Disorderly Conduct. Offense Defined. 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 . . . ."


​

But this language does not appear in the Massachusetts statute under the authority of which disorderly conduct is ordinarily prosecuted in Massachusetts, and a reasonable person might ask how the mere existence of the Model Penal Code can save the Massachusetts statute from "constitutional infirmity."
The relevant Massachusetts statute (G. L. c. 272, § 53) is a relic of the colonial era, and it sounds more like something out of The Old Curiosity Shop than a modern statute...

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.
​

This baroque language is either explicated or further confused by a mass of definitions and qualifications in a row of subsections, but...
Faced with this monstrosity, judges in Massachusetts have resorted to the useful fiction that G. L. c. 272, § 53 is a hideously clumsy paraphrase of the Model Penal Code at s. 250.2: (1), which I quoted above, and G. L. c. 272, § 53 has been saved from "constitutional infirmity" by interpretation rather than legislative revision.

In other words, constitutional challenges to G. L. c. 272, § 53 are avoided by de facto adherence to the Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1).

"If you believe the police report (and this is an essay about matters of law rather than matters of fact), then Professor Gates probably satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that "persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access" were affected."



The Free Speech Zone:: Obama/Gates/Crowley: Relevant Statutes, Case Law, and Model Code
​

 

[Care4all]

The rights of mr Gates were infringed on..that's my issue and as anguille, I would be here arguing the argument that this arrest was unlawful and unconstitutional, even if he were white.

You are absolutely wrong Care.


Even using your own definition:

A "disorderly person" is defined as one who:

* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or

* recklessly creates a risk thereof
​

If causing a public disturbance as Gates did isn't disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, I don't know what is.

I'm not wrong on this Missourian, the massachusetts supreme court HAS RULED ON THIS...

LOOK it UP yourself, IF you really want to know the TRUTH on this, which I believe you do....missourian.

The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.
In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.
So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.

 

[Ravi]

I've never seen anyone post anything to back up this claim that the DA said the arrest was lawful. I only see Mo, dcon and Kitten insisting that it has been posted and ignored.

SHOCKER!

The only thing I've read about the DA is that they dropped the charges on the advice of the Cambridge Police Department.

 

[DiveCon]

Link?

its been posted

... and ignored ... as usual. The people who whine the most about links seem to be the ones to ignore them the most ... odd huh?

yup
sure do