[tomder55]

Excon ;if you are talking about the incident involving Professor Henry Louis Gates ,then I think Sgt. James Crowley did show the proper respect ,and Gates intentionally created an incident . Crowley showed restraint Gates did not .

Even though charges were dropped ;I think Crowley did the right thing in arresting Gates. Yes ,there was no crime by Gates breaking into his house ,and the whole thing would've been over had Gates simply provided his ID as requested .It was reasonable for Crowley to request an ID given the fact that he was responding to a reported break in ,and that the house had been broken into before .How would he know otherwise that Gates in fact lived there ? It was unreasonable for Gates to carry on like a lunatic and scream insults at Crowley for making his request. Gates wasn't only refusing to provide ID ,but he was being insulting to Crowley in his refusal. His rants attracted such a crowd that Crowley was finally forced to put him in handcuffs for disorderly conduct. Police have a mandate to maintain public order.

Let's say it was not Gates, but in fact an intruder. The intruder then pretends he is Gates and tells Crowley , “It's o.k. officers, this is my home, I just got locked out.” Then Crowley replies “Oh, sorry,and leaves, instead of asking for ID. It could be argued then that indeed Crowley acted "stupidly ".

Instead of claiming he was 'profiled' ,Gates would instead be complaining that that they didn't ask for I.D. when his house was being robbed.

[excon]

but he was being insulting to Crowley in his refusal. His rants attracted such a crowd that Crowley was finally forced to put him in handcuffs for disorderly conduct. Police have a mandate to maintain public order.

Hello tom:

Couple things. It's not illegal to YELL at a cop. Gates did NOT break the law. A citizen yelling at a cop does NOT interfere with public order.

It is very rude of citizens to do that, to be sure. But it is not a crime. The idea that people should not get angry, should not pull rank, should be rude to others is an issue for sociologists and Miss Manners, not the cops. Humans often behave badly, but that doesn't make it illegal. For people with such tremendous power as police officers to be coddled into thinking that these are behaviors that allow them to arrest people (or worse) seems to be to far more dangerous than allowing a foolish person or two to set a bad example in the public square.

But, I'm not surprised at your response...

excon

[N0help4u]

Its not illegal technically by the book but in reality they call it disorderly conduct, resisting an officer or whatever they can put it under so even being legal they still use their loopholes to put you in the wrong.

[excon]

its not illegal technically by the book but in reality they call it disorderly conduct, resisting an officer or whatever they can put it under so even being legal they still use their loopholes to put you in the wrong.

Hello again, N0:

True... But, then they subject themselves to a false arrest lawsuit which certainly MAY happen here. Those "loopholes" are going to come back to bite the city.

excon

[N0help4u]

I hope they do.
It is about time that something gives to make cops think about their ethical behavior.
They need to make an example of some of them.
It makes me sick what I see a lot of cops (mainly the newer ones of the past few years) get away with.
I know a lot of good cops on my townships department but some of the newer ones walk around like they can do no wrong.

[s_cianci]

If you want to call it a "loophole", that is. Disorderly conduct IS against the law ; it is a crime. The real question boils down to what exactly constitutes "disorderly conduct?" Like with all other aspects of the law, there's room (and the need for) interpretation. If a police officer, in his discretion, believes that one is guilty of disorderly conduct, then it's his responsibility to charge that person accordingly. Then, as with any other criminal charge, the suspect appears in court and receives a trial (unless (s)he pleads guilty at the onset) and is either convicted or acquitted. It's also important to understand that the job of the police is enforcement, not justice. The police are not lawyers and they're not judges. Determining guilt or innocence is not their job. Sure, a suspect is always innocent until proven guilty but the police have the responsibility to protect the community, which means arresting suspects accused or suspected of criminal activity, informing them of the charges against them, informing them of their rights and following all booking procedures (fingerprinting, etc.) Then their job is finished, except for maybe testifying in court when the case goes to trial, if they in fact witnessed the acts constituting the alleged crime(s) in question. Now also, let's apply a little common sense here ; while a suspect may be entitled to due process yada, yada, yada, when one witnesses a citizen committing a crime or something which could constitute a crime (e.g. "disorderly conduct"). Whether such witness be a cop or ordinary citizen, it's generally pretty obvious that the person committing said act(s) is guilty, even in the absence of a trial by jury, etc. For example, if I witness someone breaking into a house, then obviously that person is guilty, save for the uncommon possibility that the person lives there and inadvertently locked himself out. But, as already said, a simple ID will clear that up. Now I realize that part of the legal process would entail my testifying, under oath, that yes, I witnessed this person attempting to break into the house in question and that my testimony is what helps establish the guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". But we can't be totally stupid and naïve about things ; when someone's doing something wrong, then they're guilty, plain and simple. In my opinion, that's the whole problem with the justice system in this country ; common sense has gone completely down the toilet.

[N0help4u]

In my opinion, that's the whole problem with the justice system in this country ; common sense has gone completely down the toilet.

Exactly

[excon]

The real question boils down to what exactly constitutes "disorderly conduct?" Like with all other aspects of the law, there's room (and the need for) interpretation.

Hello again, s:

What you say is true.

The crimes of disorderly person in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 272 §53. In order for the prosecution to convict someone of violating this statute it must prove that the behavior of the accused was offensive and disorderly to a reasonable person. Offensive acts are those that cause discontent, umbrage or anger. Massachusetts appellate courts have held that acts or language that implicate fighting or threatening, or behavior that is riotous or violent, or behavior that creates a hazardous or offensive condition for no legitimate purpose can satisfy the elements of the disorderly person statute.

Using vulgar or profane words alone or offensive speech does not amount to disorderly conduct. Nor does the use of obscenities in public places suffice for a conviction under this statute.

As I suggested above, I don't think the level of conduct reached the legal threshold.

excon

[N0help4u]

The problem is many courts do not uphold any thresholds. Many Judges go by 'bad hair day' or 'I feel' or 'MY mood today'

[excon]

The problem is many courts do not uphold any thresholds. Many Judges go by 'bad hair day' or 'I feel' or 'MY mood today'

Hello again, N0:

I have a fondness for the law. It IS the cornerstone of our society. While I don't disagree with you about SOME judges, I think MOST of them have the same dedication to the law as I do, even if their interpretation is different...

I wouldn't hold the law in such high regard if I thought, that it was based on a "bad hair day", or "moods". That isn't to say that I haven't run into judges like you describe. I have, and even worse.

excon

[N0help4u]

I agree I do too as it was meant to be, but I see it becoming more the other way.

What I am saying is it is just that too many are Judges and police are getting away with stuff because they can.

Many people feel they have no power to do anything about the bad Judges and laws because the bad ones stick together and place you in a no win situation.

You say a cuss word or two to a cop.
They write you up for it with anything they can think of.
They take it to court
The Judge sticks it to you
Then your lawyer says ''Well you can fight this but guess who any Judge is going to side with... you or the cop?"

[s_cianci]

As I suggested above, I don't think the level of conduct reached the legal threshold.

And this is where the whole idea of 'interpretation' comes into play concerning matters of criminal law. That's where it's up to the judge or, if applicable, the jury to sort through all the evidence (which in the case of a disorderly conduct charge would be strictly word-of-mouth eyewitness testimony) and decide whether a crime was in fact committed.

The problem is many courts do not uphold any thresholds. Many Judges go by 'bad hair day' or 'I feel' or 'MY mood today'

This is very true also. Not all judges interpret the law objectively. Look at all the grilling Sonya Sotomayor is undergoing, not unlike what any other Supreme Court nominee is subjected to. And I know I'm opening a whole new can of worms here but, in my opinion, Judge Sotomayor has not always interpreted the law properly in the course of her legal practice. That's just one example.

[inthebox]

Hello:

Let's say there is a confrontation between a citizen and a cop.... Who, between the two, is entitled to respect by the other????

Me??? I believe the citizen is. After all, the citizen is the sovereign and the cop works for him... However, I believe those folks of the right wing persuasion would say that we should kiss the cops rear end no matter what.

You?

excon

No one is entitled. Mature individuals treat everyone with respect and don't necessarily feel entitled or demand it.

Common sense tells me that in a court of law, the cop. They have the police report, what does the citizen have ? [ video - is it admissible? ] The police may have a dash cam - which is neutral but not beyond manipulation.

I'm not sure if cops are required to take psychology, but I've gotten away with speeding by just being polite, respectful, and even submissive. In a high adrenaline situation a human / cop is more likely to either fight or flight [run]. A cop represents authority and though it may only be words, if they are offensive, then a cop is more likely to respond in the fight mode. A citizen cannot respond in a "fight" mode with a cop in most situations.

I have also been wrongly arrested and been put in a holding tank because of a county courthouse clerical error. The cops were snide, but what could I do, they were just doing their job. I got my day in court.

I am of the right wing persuasion as you say, I realize that most police work is a high stress job that does not pay very well for the responsibilities involved. I also realize that the more local the cop the less likely they have had much comprehensive training. Deal with them accordingly.






G&P

[tomder55]

What is being done here is projection of bad experiences and possible real injustices with police onto the Gates case. But the truth is that this case in no way resembles incidences of police abuse ;and yes I know it happens .

It is my view that Gates saw this incident develop into a moment he could exploit to illustrate his thesis and life's work that whites suck . It was his actions that dictated the course of events . Had he shown even the most basic decency and respect towards the police ;who after all were there to protect him and his property , the incident would not have escalated . It is my opinion from reading the police report that he intended to push the envelope until he was arrested . In fact ;I'm surprised he did not have a video camera rolling. It is no coincidence in my view that this occurred as he was preparing a PBS documentary on racial profiling .

But if there was any profiling being done here it was Gates profiling Sgt Crowley . You know and I know that had this been a Black Officer responding that Gates would've been cooperative and in the end would've thanked him for his concern and his service to the community .
Sgt Crowley is also a victim of defamation by the President.

[tomder55]

I realize that most police work is a high stress job that does not pay very well for the responsibilities involved. I also realize that the more local the cop the less likely they have had much comprehensive training. Deal with them accordingly.

In the case of Sgt Crowley he was well versed on the rules of racial profiling as he has voluntarily taught the course on avoiding racial profiling for the dept. at the Lowell Police Academy for the last 5 years. Former police commissioner Ronny Watson (who is black ) selected Crowley to teach the course.

[ETWolverine]

Hello:

Let's say there is a confrontation between a citizen and a cop.... Who, between the two, is entitled to respect by the other????

Me??? I believe the citizen is. After all, the citizen is the sovereign and the cop works for him... However, I believe those folks of the right wing persuasion would say that we should kiss the cops rear end no matter what.

You?

excon

What is the reason for the confrontation?

What actions were tasken by the cop?

What actions were taken by the citizen?

What are the actions that the cop is SUPPOSED to take under his rules and regulations? Did he follow his rules and regulations?

A question like yours, taken out of context (as usual) doesn't provide enough information to come to a conclusion.

Personally, I'm a fan of Chris Rock's rules for not getting your butt kicked by the cops.

http://www.chrisrock.com/video/535

Since I assume you are referring to the Gates incident, I will point out that Gates violated Chris Rock's rules by becoming beligerent with the cop. From what I have read and heard, the cop was answering a legitimate call of a possible B & E. His job was to investigate and make sure that the people in the house BELONGED in the house and that they weren't under duress from someone else. He did his job by asking Gates to step outside the house and provide ID. Providing ID would establish the person's identity, and stepping outside the house would insure that he was not under duress from a third party that wasn't seen by the cops. Gates refused to comply with what were rather simple requests. Why he felt it necessary to give the cop some $h!t, I have no idea... it doesn't strike me as the appropriate actions of a scholar and educator. And even after the cop had established that Gates was the real owner and was getting ready to leave, Gates continued to give the cop $h!t. Had he followed the simple rules of Chris Rock, which can be summed up as "act respectfully of yourself and others", he could have avoided the whole mess.

I have been confronted by cops in the past. I was actually confronted by a couple of cops outside my home a few months back. I was parked outside the house and was inside the car waiting for my kids. (I'm currently separated, and don't live in my home, even though it is legally my home.) A neighbor didn't recognize me or my car and called the cops to check me out, which they did. They asked me to step out of the car and show them my ID. I complied. They asked me what I was waiting for, and I told them I was waiting for my kids. They thanked me for my patience and I thanked them for doing their jobs. We were respectful to each other. Consequently I was NOT arrested on disturbance charges. The whole incident lasted less than 5 minutes.

The point is that I was in almost the same situation as Gates, rather recently. But my actions and responses were VERY different from his. The result was also very different.

So... you may be right, excon, in saying that the cop should be respectful of the citizen, and the citizen owes nothing to the cops. Let's even take it as gospel that you are right. (We can debate it another time.)

So what? It costs NOTHING to be respectful of the cop, and it would have defused the entire situation in short order. What possible reason is there NOT to be respectful of the cop? Just because you can? That's just foolish. And it gets you arrested for your own stupidity.

You can be "right" or you can be "good". But sometimes you can't be both, and you need to choose which you want to be. Being "right" may make you feel morally superior, but it just doesn't get you very far in cases like these. Being "good" may take a certain minimal amount of sacrifice of your moral position (your "right" to be a jerk) in a case like this one, but you can get much farther. The choice is yours. I made mine.

Elliot

[excon]

A neighbor didn't recognize me or my car and called the cops to check me out, which they did. They asked me to step out of the car and show them my ID. I complied. They asked me what I was waiting for, and I told them I was waiting for my kids. They thanked me for my patience and I thanked them for doing their jobs. We were respectful to each other. Consequently I was NOT arrested on disturbance charges. The whole incident lasted less than 5 minutes.

Hello again, El:

It's not surprising to ME, that you would equate driving while Jewish, to driving while black.

This isn't the time to give you some sensitivity training or a history lesson. They're BOTH lost on the right wing, as is OBVIOUS by your post.

excon

[N0help4u]

Oh I didn't really know what the story was about.
Here is exactly why a cop would do that.

Near where I live 3 police were called to home over domestic dispute. Adult son was freaking out at mom for allowing dogs to mess all over the carpet. Mom called police. 911 did not inform police that he had guns. He was also wearing a bullet proof vest expecting the police, Shot all three to death upon arriving at house.

FOXNews.com - Shooter Wearing Bulletproof Vest Guns Down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, Upset Over Losing Job - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

It's not surprising to ME, that you would equate driving while Jewish, to driving while black.

This isn't the time to give you some sensitivity training or a history lesson. They're BOTH lost on the right wing, as is OBVIOUS by your post.

excon

So you are saying that if Gates had acted more like I had, he STILL would have been arrested, and only because he's black?

Bull$h!t.

And gee, Jews have never been the subject of descrimination by cops in this country...

And if that's your feeling, then why bring up the issue of "respect" at all in your post. According to what you just said, this had nothing to do with respect. It was a purely race-related incident, and respect had nothing to do with the issue.

You don't even know your own opinion anymore... what this a respect issue or a race issue? You just react with liberal knee-jerk reactions.

I HAVE studied history. That's how I learned to AVOID making incidents with the cops WORSE than they have to be and how to AVOID giving them excuses to arrest me. You should try it sometime.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I'm of the right-wing persuasion and I don't believe we "should kiss the cops rear end no matter what." That's another one of those myths you like to repeat. I've dealt with cops "acting stuipdly," I've dealt with white cops "acting stupidly" toward my white daughter who was being harassed by a black man. I'd like to have punched them both in the nose but then I would have ended up in jail.

That's the 'problem' with dealing with the police, sometimes you just have to do what they say. I believe Gates wasn't just yelling at Crowley, he was failing to obey a lawful order which can probably land you in cuffs and then jail in all 50 states. Gates knows this and by his reaction I'm sure he'll milk this for all its worth. And if the president of the United States begins a sentence with "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts" he should end it with something like "so I can't comment on the incident at this time."

By the way, here is the police report pdf.