Who's stupid now?

[Valerie]

WOW, we are treading on new ground for the 'so called' defenders of free speech.

SO, the police, who are agents of the State, the government, MUST have the authority to stop free speech.

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

Under Massachusetts law, if you cause a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.

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.

If you are convicted of disorderly conduct in MA, it is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've been through this before, I think he followed proper procedure.

The procedure is wrong, so he did not follow proper procedure, he followed departmental procedure. No one should ever be arrested for mouthing off to cops, or not listening to them, or even walking away from them when they are talking. Police advocate for disorderly conduct laws to be able to arrest people who annoy them, and to keep people in their place.They all need to be scrapped.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct and rightfully so...He was being loud and tumultuous and threatening to sue them for being racist as they attempted to positively identify him...It was his own stupid conduct that left the police with no choice but to control the situation as people began gathering in the street.

He was arrested on his own front porch, after the cops IDd him, because he was loud? Why is being loud an arrestable offense? Don't most noise ordinances require an attempt to get a person to voluntarily comply?

Why didn't Crowley simply leave when he knew that Gates had a legitimate, and legal, reason for being in his own home? Why did he call for backup, and thus escalate the situation? Why didn't he simply leave?

The reason is simple, his authority was challenged, and he reacted like any macho prick would in that situation, he hit back with his power to arrest someone for a BS reason. Your defense of him perpetuates the problem, cops are not there to arrest people, they are there to serve and protect the public. The public was not in danger from an old man who needs a cane to walk, something even Crowley recognized, or he would have placed his hands behind him when he cuffed him.

 

[Care4all]

being loud, calling racial slurs is ALL PROTECTED FREE SPEECH.

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

Disorderly conduct: “Likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm.” Activity may be regulated only if it poses a threat to a person, property, or society.

 

[Ravi]

We've been through this before, I think he followed proper procedure.

The procedure is wrong, so he did not follow proper procedure, he followed departmental procedure. No one should ever be arrested for mouthing off to cops, or not listening to them, or even walking away from them when they are talking. Police advocate for disorderly conduct laws to be able to arrest people who annoy them, and to keep people in their place.They all need to be scrapped.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct and rightfully so...He was being loud and tumultuous and threatening to sue them for being racist as they attempted to positively identify him...It was his own stupid conduct that left the police with no choice but to control the situation as people began gathering in the street.

IIRC they had already positively identified him.

And seriously, only Officer Crowley can say if he was being racist or not.

 

[Valerie]

The procedure is wrong, so he did not follow proper procedure, he followed departmental procedure. No one should ever be arrested for mouthing off to cops, or not listening to them, or even walking away from them when they are talking. Police advocate for disorderly conduct laws to be able to arrest people who annoy them, and to keep people in their place.They all need to be scrapped.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct and rightfully so...He was being loud and tumultuous and threatening to sue them for being racist as they attempted to positively identify him...It was his own stupid conduct that left the police with no choice but to control the situation as people began gathering in the street.

He was arrested on his own front porch, after the cops IDd him, because he was loud? Why is being loud an arrestable offense? Don't most noise ordinances require an attempt to get a person to voluntarily comply?

Why didn't Crowley simply leave when he knew that Gates had a legitimate, and legal, reason for being in his own home? Why did he call for backup, and thus escalate the situation? Why didn't he simply leave?

The reason is simple, his authority was challenged, and he reacted like any macho prick would in that situation, he hit back with his power to arrest someone for a BS reason. Your defense of him perpetuates the problem, cops are not there to arrest people, they are there to serve and protect the public. The public was not in danger from an old man who needs a cane to walk, something even Crowley recognized, or he would have placed his hands behind him when he cuffed him.

I paid very close attention to this incident at the time and not one person has shown one shred of proof that any of the officers behaved like anything but officers following proper procedure. Everyone else has proven their own prejudices by such conjecture.

 

[Ravi]

WOW, we are treading on new ground for the 'so called' defenders of free speech.

SO, the police, who are agents of the State, the government, MUST have the authority to stop free speech.

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

Under Massachusetts law, if you cause a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.

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.

If you are convicted of disorderly conduct in MA, it is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Laws - MA Defense Lawyer - Mass Attorney Elliot Savitz

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

 

[Care4all]

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

Under Massachusetts law, if you cause a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.

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.

If you are convicted of disorderly conduct in MA, it is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Laws - MA Defense Lawyer - Mass Attorney Elliot Savitz

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

me too! and based on all of the massachusetts supreme court rulings on this, it is likely gates would win, against the state...

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

 

[Ravi]

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

me too! and based on all of the massachusetts supreme court rulings on this, it is likely gates would win, against the state...

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

Probably why the charges were dropped.

 

[Valerie]

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

Under Massachusetts law, if you cause a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.

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.

If you are convicted of disorderly conduct in MA, it is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace.

Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Laws - MA Defense Lawyer - Mass Attorney Elliot Savitz

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

 

[Ravi]

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

 

[Care4all]

the(Massachusetts) Court held that speech could be restricted only in the event that it was "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Justice Douglas wrote, "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

 

[Bfgrn]

He was arrested for disorderly conduct and rightfully so...He was being loud and tumultuous and threatening to sue them for being racist as they attempted to positively identify him...It was his own stupid conduct that left the police with no choice but to control the situation as people began gathering in the street.

He was arrested on his own front porch, after the cops IDd him, because he was loud? Why is being loud an arrestable offense? Don't most noise ordinances require an attempt to get a person to voluntarily comply?

Why didn't Crowley simply leave when he knew that Gates had a legitimate, and legal, reason for being in his own home? Why did he call for backup, and thus escalate the situation? Why didn't he simply leave?

The reason is simple, his authority was challenged, and he reacted like any macho prick would in that situation, he hit back with his power to arrest someone for a BS reason. Your defense of him perpetuates the problem, cops are not there to arrest people, they are there to serve and protect the public. The public was not in danger from an old man who needs a cane to walk, something even Crowley recognized, or he would have placed his hands behind him when he cuffed him.

I paid very close attention to this incident at the time and not one person has shown one shred of proof that any of the officers behaved like anything but officers following proper procedure. Everyone else has proven their own prejudices by such conjecture.

Then why did they drop the charges?

It was because Crowley acted out of emotion instead of being a 'professional' and following proper procedure. Crowley should have turned, got into is squad car, and properly served the public by patrolling for REAL criminals and people actually breaking the law.

 

[hboats]

in their own homes? wonder how many of these cursing at police officers take place in these people's OWN homes, on their own property, that get arrested?

i'm sure a fair amount do, or do you think domestic violence calls never take place in someone's home and never result in someone getting arrested for disorderly conduct?

I guess I see VIOLENCE different than calling someone names.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will NEVER hurt me." kind of thing...

I also see the frustration in being accused of robbing ones own home, as being part of the stress behind Gates yelling.

If gates had been beating his wife in his own home or if he had committed any crime at all and then started going verbally ballistic, then i could see arresting him for yelling at the cop....

otherwise, no....I don't think cops should be arresting people in their own homes or on their own property when they are endangering NO ONE, and when they did not do anything wrong to have the cops approach them in the first place......then to me, the cop should recognize such, and just leave.....it is not the cops home, he does not rule another person's home....especially if the cop knew within a minute, the crime he thought had happened, DID NOT.

I know I differ with you on this, but there are so many REAL CRIMINALS out there, and the police are wasting tax payer's dime on innocent people like gates.

Care

The only problem is that the police were working off of a call. They were told that someone was breaking into Gates' house. All Gates had to do was produce I.D. proving that he lived there and there would have been no problem, but instead he goes off on the police officers. THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOBS. Gates was in the wrong.

Imagine if it hadn't been Gates trying to break into his own home. Imagine if it had been a burglar. Imagine if that burglar had just told the police he lived there and they just let him go about his business. Because that's what you all are saying the police should have done. You're saying that upon getting a call that someone is breaking into the house next door and coming upon the house finding a man looking like he's breaking in, the police should have just asked if he lived there, and if he'd said yes, they should have just let him be.

Sorry, but that's just about the most stupid thing I've heard lately.

They were doing their jobs people and Gates just had to comply with their requests and he'd have been left alone. Instead Gates made it into something that it wasn't.

Rick

 

[Bfgrn]

i'm sure a fair amount do, or do you think domestic violence calls never take place in someone's home and never result in someone getting arrested for disorderly conduct?

I guess I see VIOLENCE different than calling someone names.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will NEVER hurt me." kind of thing...

I also see the frustration in being accused of robbing ones own home, as being part of the stress behind Gates yelling.

If gates had been beating his wife in his own home or if he had committed any crime at all and then started going verbally ballistic, then i could see arresting him for yelling at the cop....

otherwise, no....I don't think cops should be arresting people in their own homes or on their own property when they are endangering NO ONE, and when they did not do anything wrong to have the cops approach them in the first place......then to me, the cop should recognize such, and just leave.....it is not the cops home, he does not rule another person's home....especially if the cop knew within a minute, the crime he thought had happened, DID NOT.

I know I differ with you on this, but there are so many REAL CRIMINALS out there, and the police are wasting tax payer's dime on innocent people like gates.

Care

The only problem is that the police were working off of a call. They were told that someone was breaking into Gates' house. All Gates had to do was produce I.D. proving that he lived there and there would have been no problem, but instead he goes off on the police officers. THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOBS. Gates was in the wrong.

Imagine if it hadn't been Gates trying to break into his own home. Imagine if it had been a burglar. Imagine if that burglar had just told the police he lived there and they just let him go about his business. Because that's what you all are saying the police should have done. You're saying that upon getting a call that someone is breaking into the house next door and coming upon the house finding a man looking like he's breaking in, the police should have just asked if he lived there, and if he'd said yes, they should have just let him be.

Sorry, but that's just about the most stupid thing I've heard lately.

They were doing their jobs people and Gates just had to comply with their requests and he'd have been left alone. Instead Gates made it into something that it wasn't.

Rick

You don't arrest someone based on 'IMAGINE'

 

[Care4all]

Jon Shane, who spent 17 years as a police officer in hardscrabble Newark, N.J., said that had he been the cop called to Gates' house, he would have left Gates and his huffy comments alone once he was sure Gates was the homeowner. He admits he may well have been offended by the professor's alleged bluster, but that's just part of the job, so much so that there's a term in police vernacular devoted to situations like this: contempt of cop.

"In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law," says Shane, now a professor of criminal justice at John Jay who specializes in police policy and practice. "With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law-enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them." The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. "You could tell them to go f___ themselves," says Shane, "and that's fine."

Read more: Henry Louis Gates: Behind His Disorderly Conduct Charge - TIME

 

[Care4all]

no one has shown any EVIDENCE that Gates broke the law or deserved a disorderly conduct arrest, according to the Law imo....and the charges were appropriately dropped.

we have the RIGHT to free speech, AGAINST our gvt.

 

[Ravi]

the(Massachusetts) Court held that speech could be restricted only in the event that it was "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Justice Douglas wrote, "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

Maybe the danger was that the cops were going to look stupid.

 

[ConHog]

When Henry Louis Gates Jr., a prominent Harvard professor of African-American studies, was arrested for disorderly conduct by a white Cambridge police officer last summer, President Obama led a chorus of critics denouncing the local Police Department.

Gates, who is African-American, described his arrest as a “teaching moment’’ about race relations in America.

His case drew national attention to the relationship between policing and race. Obama wound up hosting Gates and the officer who arrested him for a so-called beer summit at the White House. And the arrest, for some, raised the question of whether officers disproportionately arrest blacks for disorderly conduct, considered one of the most discretionary and most abused charges in the nation’s criminal justice system.

But a review of the Cambridge department’s handling of disorderly conduct cases from 2004 to 2009 finds no evidence of racial profiling. Instead, the analysis by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting finds that the most common factor linking people who are arrested in Cambridge for disorderly conduct is that they were allegedly screaming or cursing in front of police.

Review finds no links to race, arrests - The Boston Globe

About NECIR-BU New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

 

[Care4all]

i am looking at this without bias....just reading the laws and supreme court rulings on the topic.

i stand by my original opinion, BASED on these court rulings.

 

[xsited1]

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.