The Stupidity Of The Gates Arrest

[Care4all]

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

Link?

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

 

[DiveCon]

Link?

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

seems some have seen it besides me
maybe you should re-read the threads

 

[Ravi]

Link?

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

True. I think what happens is someone posts something here making a claim and half the posters on the forum take it as fact.

 

[Anguille]

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

seems some have seen it besides me
maybe you should re-read the threads

Yet no one can find it in the threads or online.

 

[Anguille]

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

True. I think what happens is someone posts something here making a claim and half the posters on the forum take it as fact.

It can probably be found in the del's Bald Faced Lies repository.

 

[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.

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.

I read the synopsis of Commonwealth v. Lopiano...the difference between the two cases is the presence of a crowd to be "annoyed and alarmed" so Lopiano was only held to the standard of "tumultuous behavior".

http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html
​

This is from the Time article in the OP:

"Talking trash by itself isn't a punishable offense — unless, it seems, you draw a crowd while doing it, which is part of the allegation against Gates."
​

And, although I couldn't find much on Commonwealth v. Mallahan, it seems since he was already in custody and handcuffs at the time his tirade occurred, disorderly conduct was ruled not to apply.

If you find can find a link to the actual case I would be happy to read it.

So, once again, Andy Winkler is wrong...par for the course from the Huffington Post.

 

[Care4all]

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.

I read the synopsis of Commonwealth v. Lopiano...the difference between the two cases is the presence of a crowd to be "annoyed and alarmed" so Lopiano was only held to the standard of "tumultuous behavior".

http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html
​

This is from the Time article in the OP:

"Talking trash by itself isn't a punishable offense — unless, it seems, you draw a crowd while doing it, which is part of the allegation against Gates."
​

And, although I couldn't find much on Commonwealth v. Mallahan, it seems since he was already in custody and handcuffs at the time his tirade occurred, disorderly conduct was ruled not to apply.

If you find can find a link to the actual case I would be happy to read it.

So, once again, Andy Winkler is wrong...par for the course from the Huffington Post.

here ya go, i found some stuff that might help!

Arrest under Massachusetts "idle and disorderly person" statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of "riotous commotion" or "public nuisance." U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.

...

Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.

...

Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to "violent or tumultuous behavior" within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.

ALSO THIS A GOVERNMENT LINK....which is a law link describing everything anyone wanted to know, on DISORDERLY CONDUCT and what the courts have ruled.

THIS IS A MUST READ

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ions/criminal/pdf/7160-disorderly-conduct.pdf

 

[Missourian]

ALSO THIS A GOVERNMENT LINK....which is a law link describing everything anyone wanted to know, on DISORDERLY CONDUCT and what the courts have ruled.

THIS IS A MUST READ

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ions/criminal/pdf/7160-disorderly-conduct.pdf

I read it. All three requirements were satisfied.

1) It forbids tumultuous and highly agitated behavior, which may not involve physical violence, but which causes riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise, and so constitutes a public nuisance.

2) his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.​

3) The defendant was reckless if he (she) knew, or must have known, that such actions would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but he (she) chose, nevertheless, to run the risk and go ahead.

 

[paperview]

its been posted

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

True. I think what happens is someone posts something here making a claim and half the posters on the forum take it as fact.

I can't find it either.

You'd think ONE of them would be happy to prove that point with a LINK.

 

[Care4all]

ALSO THIS A GOVERNMENT LINK....which is a law link describing everything anyone wanted to know, on DISORDERLY CONDUCT and what the courts have ruled.

THIS IS A MUST READ

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ions/criminal/pdf/7160-disorderly-conduct.pdf

I read it. All three requirements were satisfied.

1) It forbids tumultuous and highly agitated behavior, which may not involve physical violence, but which causes riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise, and so constitutes a public nuisance.

2) his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.​

3) The defendant was reckless if he (she) knew, or must have known, that such actions would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but he (she) chose, nevertheless, to run the risk and go ahead.

and the gates case DOES NOT fit any of those....CROWLEY ASKED GATES TWICE TO COME OUTSIDE WITH HIM, while he was yelling at him.....

-so gates did not begin to yell to insight a riot or disturb others, he was already yelling at him in the house

-and crowley, if he truly believed that gates was ''tumultuous'' then crowley should have NEVER requested gates to come outside of the house and put the public in danger of his violent reaction, or put gates in the place where he could incite a riot etc....derreliction of duty of sorts on crowley's part.

-and at 1 pm in mid afternoon, yelling is not a nuisance....

-and under all circumstances it must be in a place where the public GATHERS....not a few passerbys that were already there because of the police cars

-and all the yelling and screaming and tizzy fit in the world, against a cop or many cops gathered, is constitutionally protected speech and not considered disorderly conduct...because they are not considered ''the public''

i can go on and on with why i think it was unlawful....even more than i gave emphasis above!

care

 

[Anguille]

no

the DA said NO SUCH THING....

True. I think what happens is someone posts something here making a claim and half the posters on the forum take it as fact.

I can't find it either.

You'd think ONE of them would be happy to prove that point with a LINK.

I just don't understand it myself ...

 

[Anguille]

Except that the cop is paid not to overreact, which made it unprofessional on his part. Plus they quickly dropped the charges when clearer heads got control of the situation, so the cop was wrong to arrest him.
I'm amazed at how many conservatives suddenly decided that a man has no right to get upset when the cops accuse him of burglarizing his own home.

The DA has stated repeatedly the officer was well within protocol to arrest Gates and that dropping the charges had no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the arrest.

P.S. - The police were accusing him of breaking into the home...which he admitted.

Link?

Still waiting on this one too.

 

[paperview]

Still waiting on this one too.

I think we'll be waiting a while.

 

[Anguille]

Still waiting on this one too.

I think we'll be waiting a while.

Shady characters, those guys.

 

[manifold]

I just spent the last 20 minutes searching the interwebs high and low trying to find any reference to the DA stating that this was a lawful arrest. I came up empty.


It appears that somebody is full of shit.

 

[paperview]

I just spent the last 20 minutes searching the interwebs high and low trying to find any reference to the DA stating that this was a lawful arrest. I came up empty.


It appears that somebody is full of shit.

I did the same thing.

NOTHING.

To those who claimed the DA said that:

 

[Anguille]

I just spent the last 20 minutes searching the interwebs high and low trying to find any reference to the DA stating that this was a lawful arrest. I came up empty.


It appears that somebody is full of shit.

One thing I like about you, mani, is you do keep an open mind and are not too proud to change your mind on an issue if you have sufficient reason to.

 

[Missourian]

ALSO THIS A GOVERNMENT LINK....which is a law link describing everything anyone wanted to know, on DISORDERLY CONDUCT and what the courts have ruled.

THIS IS A MUST READ

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ions/criminal/pdf/7160-disorderly-conduct.pdf

I read it. All three requirements were satisfied.

1) It forbids tumultuous and highly agitated behavior, which may not involve physical violence, but which causes riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise, and so constitutes a public nuisance.

2) his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.​

3) The defendant was reckless if he (she) knew, or must have known, that such actions would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but he (she) chose, nevertheless, to run the risk and go ahead.

and the gates case DOES NOT fit any of those....CROWLEY ASKED GATES TWICE TO COME OUTSIDE WITH HIM, while he was yelling at him.....

-so gates did not begin to yell to insight a riot or disturb others, he was already yelling at him in the house

It says nothing about intent, only action.

-and crowley, if he truly believed that gates was ''tumultuous'' then crowley should have NEVER requested gates to come outside of the house and put the public in danger of his violent reaction, or put gates in the place where he could incite a riot etc....derreliction of duty of sorts on crowley's part.

It is not Crowley's responsibility to control Gates' actions. Gates is responsible for Gates' actions.

-and at 1 pm in mid afternoon, yelling is not a nuisance....

What a ridiculous statement.

-and under all circumstances it must be in a place where the public GATHERS....not a few passerbys that were already there because of the police cars

What part of 'any neighborhood' is unclear.

-and all the yelling and screaming and tizzy fit in the world, against a cop or many cops gathered, is constitutionally protected speech and not considered disorderly conduct...because they are not considered ''the public''

The content is protected, not the volume.

i can go on and on with why i think it was unlawful....even more than i gave emphasis above!

care

Fail.

 

[manifold]

I just spent the last 20 minutes searching the interwebs high and low trying to find any reference to the DA stating that this was a lawful arrest. I came up empty.


It appears that somebody is full of shit.

One thing I like about you, mani, is you do keep an open mind and are not too proud to change your mind on an issue if you have sufficient reason to.

Just bear in mind that I'd have no problem changing it back again if anyone can confirm this lawful claim, including the DA's explanation. At least from a technical standpoint anyway.

The more I learn about the specifics the more I think the cop overreacted. Regardless of whether it was lawful, I'm now convinced it was unnecessary. But at the same time, my opinion of Gates just gets worse and worse the more I learn too. I'm more convinced than ever that he jedi-mind tricked Crowley into the overreaction.

 

[Anguille]

I'm more convinced than ever that he jedi-mind tricked Crowley into the overreaction.

He have to be pretty crafty to do that. And a risk taker too. How could he know how far the cops would take it?

I doubt that a guy who just got off a 20 hour flight from China was up for publicity stunts.

Also, I'm not accepting as gospel truth that he said all the things people are claiming he said. None of it can be heard on the tapes and the rest is according to Crowley's report.

I think the two of them were both just having a bad day. Gates with jet lag and Crowley with a hangover.