Obama vs Caimbridge Police - Racial issue?

[Omnileech]

BlueCollarJoe

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

So getting belligerent and baselessly automatically accusing someone of being racist while yelling at them is fine and dandy. Gotcha.

Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

Nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why do you hate white folks so much and automatically make them guilty and claim the black did nothing out of line?

You have got to be ******** kidding me. Accusing someone of being racist is protected speech. Belligerent speech, rude speech and attitude is protected speech. The man had a constitutional right to act the way he did and what do you do? You support arresting him for it! You hate the first amendment! Don't back out of it now that you've been called on it! You don't support the first amendment when you don't agree with what the people have to say!

Don't change the subject by calling me a racist.

You show the traits. He's loud and disturbing the peace. He got arrested after he came out his door and continued to show his a**. Nothing more to it.

Yelling is a protected form of speech. Disturbing the peace? At noon? Bullshit. He created no danger to the community, himself, or others. He was arrested because the police officer didn't like what he has to say. That's a violation of freedom of speech and had the department not almost immediately dropped the charges then they would have had their asses sued for violating his constitutional rights. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much? You apparently do because you don't think someone has a right to be rude on their own property.

[BlueCollarJoe]

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

So getting belligerent and baselessly automatically accusing someone of being racist while yelling at them is fine and dandy. Gotcha.

Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

Nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why do you hate white folks so much and automatically make them guilty and claim the black did nothing out of line?

You have got to be ******** kidding me. Accusing someone of being racist is protected speech. Belligerent speech, rude speech and attitude is protected speech. The man had a constitutional right to act the way he did and what do you do? You support arresting him for it! You hate the first amendment! Don't back out of it now that you've been called on it! You don't support the first amendment when you don't agree with what the people have to say!

Don't change the subject by calling me a racist.

You show the traits. He's loud and disturbing the peace. He got arrested after he came out his door and continued to show his a**. Nothing more to it.

Yelling is a protected form of speech. Disturbing the peace? At noon? Bullshit. He created no danger to the community, himself, or others. He was arrested because the police officer didn't like what he has to say. That's a violation of freedom of speech and had the department not almost immediately dropped the charges then they would have had their asses sued for violating his constitutional rights. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much? You apparently do because you don't think someone has a right to be rude on their own property.

Your own property? That's rich. When you step out your front door and start yelling at police officers? They should have locked his a** up. Just because the mayor rolls over and the rest do as well means nothing.
He may have the right to say whatever he wants, but his tone and the volume can definitely cause issues.
Time of day means s**t. We all know people that work third shift and are asleep at that time, so yeah, a little peace and quiet would be nice.
Had the over educated dipshit simply shown his ID when asked, and actually realized "Hey, the cops showed up to see if there was a B&E, protecting my property!!, That's good." He decided to get on his high horse and show his a**.

[Omnileech]

Quote:

Your own property? That's rich. When you step out your front door and start yelling at police officers? They should have locked his a** up. Just because the mayor rolls over and the rest do as well means nothing.

Yeah! Newslash! Outside someone's front door is.... THEIR FRONT YARD. They own that too! Woooooooooow!

Quote:

He may have the right to say whatever he wants, but his tone and the volume can definitely cause issues.

Haha no. Tone, pitch, volume are all part of speech. You hate free speech if you regulate it so that someone can't raise their voice without being thrown in prison. See? I told you that you hate free speech.

Quote:

Time of day means s**t. We all know people that work third shift and are asleep at that time, so yeah, a little peace and quiet would be nice.

Nice, but not constitutionally protected! You have the right to speech you don't have the right to peace and quiet at all times of the day!

Quote:

Had the over educated dipshit simply shown his ID when asked

Along with hating free speech you also hate people smarter than you. He's over-educated so I guess he's just too smart for you. Maybe if he were dumb enough to closely resemble you then he'd ben just educated enough. But no he's "over-educated"

Quote:

Hey, the cops showed up to see if there was a B&E, protecting my property!!, That's good." He decided to get on his high horse and show his a**.

And the second it was established that the cops no longer had any reason to be on his property or talk to him they can get their asses out of his business. Instead they arrested him for being angry at them. So yes, you do indeed hate free speech and apparently people who are too smart for you as well.

[Dubyamn]

Wendigo

I grant that it's a guess, but I think that it's the more plausible of the two guesses. Since guessing that people who reside in/work in buildings across the street from one another have seen one another before is generally a safer bet than that they have never seen one another. Obviously Walen didn't recognize Gates in this case, but I would still bet that she'd seen him before and just didn't bother to get a closer look this time because of what she assumed he was doing.

We know that he lives on the same street that she works on but let's face it The guy who took the picture didn't know who Gates was and he actually lives on the street close enough to duck back and get his camera.

Quote:

What I get, searching Cambridge from today back to today last year, is two robberies, one shooting, six assaults, one missing person, one perp search, and that coffee incident. The coffee incident is the one I get from searching the vicinity of our alleged burglary.

The reason I used spotcrime, of course, was that you mentioned the map; what more reliable map did you have in mind?

I mentioned the map because I couldn't tell where mid Cambridge began and Riverside ended. I showed you the police reports of crime in the area.

Quote:

Was I employed by it, or a student? Was the "everybody" I had to know a student, or a member of the faculty? If I were an employee and it was in question whether I knew a faculty member, I would expect to know them, especially given that I evidently work across the street from their house.

Why? It's not her job to know them, the professors usually aren't all that friendly with the assorted staff and they probably don't keep the same hours.

Quote:

]My guess is that the front door leads into the foyer, and that the kitchen is off to one side from the foyer. That's what the house I live in is like, for example. The kitchen is about four feet from the door and to the left. Hence, the acoustics in the kitchen (where Gates was on the phone) would influence the acoustics in the foyer (where Crowley would be in my reconstruction). However, I would further conjecture that it was not in fact the acoustics that he left the foyer for the sake of, but rather 1. the radio signal and 2. the irate home-owner. Handheld radios are crap for signal, and Gates was clearly making a nuisance of himself.

Sounds right.

Quote:

After he radios for them. This is a couple paragraphs after Gates hands over his ID. How much time has elapsed by that point is unclear, but we know that Crowley arrives alone and radios for support from ECC before talking with Gates, and that he radios for Harvard Police sometime in the middle of talking/arguing/shouting with Gates, before Figueroa arrives. He is still talking/arguing/shouting with Gates when Figueroa and the Harvard Police arrive; I would suppose that Figueroa arrived earliest, because he was called for first, and that Harvard Police, the spectators and Harvard maintenance arrived last.

Except that Harvard police were probably the closer to the area than officer Figueroa so we can't really speculate that Figueroa was there before the Harvard police arrived.

Quote:

Where do you find that? What I find is several attempts by Crowley to get Gates to leave the house. Gates was focused instead on getting Crowley's information down to give the chief on the one hand, and insulting Crowley's mom on the other hand.

I see one attempt to get Gates to leave the house in the beginning after that Crowley says that he is leaving the house but would be willing to talk outside. Gates followed him outside of his own volition with no prodding from the police.

Also if he was so focused on getting his name and badge number how is it that he missed the badge and name tag in full view? Demanding his name and badge number was nothing more than an excuse to keep yelling.

[Dubyamn]

Omnileech

Looks like someone is intentionally misusing English Law.

Quote:

The concept of a "breach of the peace" is more widely used in English law, however. Theoretically all criminal offences cognizable by English law involve "a breach of the Queen's peace", and all indictments conclude "against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity".
Historically this phrase, now legally superfluous, represents the last trace of the process by which the royal courts assume jurisdiction over all offences, and gradually eroded the jurisdiction of the sheriff and of lords of manor and franchises, making crime a matter of national concern as distinguished from civil wrongs or infractions of the rights of local magnates. The Peace of the King was sworn on his accession or full recognition, and the jurisdiction of his courts to punish all violations of that peace was gradually asserted. The completion of this process is marked by the institution of the office of Justice of the Peace.
In the United Kingdom, although not a statutory offence but a common law offence, "breach of the peace" is widely used.[1] In the United Kingdom, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows to the police or public arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur. Breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent or potentially violent offenders from a scene rapidly; the only punishment that can be inflicted by a court for this offence is to bind over the offender to keep the peace. There are some minor differences between English law and Scots law in relation to breach of the peace.
The conclusion has also found its way into constitutional law in many United States state constitutions, which mandate that indictments within the state end in a similar manner to the above, usually omitting the "crown" part or substituting "government". For example New Jersey's is "against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same".

Removing violent or potentially voice people? That sounds just like what I said earlier and nothing like what you said. When debating a point you should use sources that don't blow your argument out of the water. Was Gates violent or potentially violent? NOPE! Therefore No reason to arrest him!

What part of "usually" means only in these circumstances?

Though of course you could have also bolded "For example New Jersey's is "against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same" and just as easily blown your point out of the water.

Quote:

Except that wasn't the end of it. After it was established that he had lived there and that the report of someone breaking in was groundless and misinformed did the police officer apologize for inconviencing the man? Nope! The Police officer arrested him.

After leaving the man's home while being pursued by Gates.

Quote:

Baseless bullshit is baseless. Maybe charges were dropped cause Gates did absolutely nothing worth arresting him for?

If that was the case it would have been dropped at a hearing to discuss the case in front of a judge. As it was it was null processed without a hearing something that even the DAs say is "abnormal."

Quote:

Tons, apparently. You've even tried to change what you said earlier to try to make some straw man point against me. It's pretty pathetic.

No I mean where in that was I putting words in your mouth.

[Mister Wilde]

It already was a "racial incident," Obama didn't turn it into one. I fully support him here, I don't think you can deny that the police were in the wrong, nor that it would have gone differently if Gates were a white man.

[Omnileech]

Quote:

What part of "usually" means only in these circumstances?

Though of course you could have also bolded "For example New Jersey's is "against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same" and just as easily blown your point out of the water.

It shows that I'm right and you're wrong. You claimed that English common law had laws in place to arrest people for briefly yelling. I said that no, they didn't, and that laws in place were meant for protecting the public safety from threats. You in turn presented an irrelevant law that didn't lend itself to your idea of what laws were like at all. It came out in support of me! The law was for things like rioting and actual threats to the public safety! Of course the law is irrelevant since it was from A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT and the bill of rights DIDN'T EXIST THEN ANYWAYS and the bill of rights DIDN'T APPLY TO STATES UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR ANYWAYS.
Wanna try a relevant example? I'm done toying around with batting down irrelevant laws that don't support your argument. It's a waste, it's nonsense. Don't throw anything else at me as support unless it directly supports your claim. Your irrelevant law actually eroded your claim.

Quote:

After leaving the man's home while being pursued by Gates.

Stop lying.


A neighbor took a picture of Gates being arrested. He wasn't even off of his property before he was arrested for insulting a police officer.

Quote:

f that was the case it would have been dropped at a hearing to discuss the case in front of a judge. As it was it was null processed without a hearing something that even the DAs say is "abnormal."

Or the police department realized how ******** stupid it was to arrest someone for a non-crime from a police officer abusing his power to arrest someone for making him mad. There's no way the police could argue that the man was disturbing the peace in front of a judge without looking like complete morons. They saved themselves from a lawsuit.

Quote:

No I mean where in that was I putting words in your mouth.

Well someone's not paying attention.

Quote:

According to you it only needs to be a few hours of sleep deprivation in order to be harmful to health and yet several hours of additional stress.

I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING.

Quote:

So anything that causes stress would also fall under this general rule of thumb? After all Stress has a well documented effect on our health and any and all of the situations you listed certainly can cause stress.

I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM.

You also insinuated that I think that someone can be as loud as they want for as long as they want. You're also ******** intellectually dishonest for equating a brief yelling match to blasting music ALL NIGHT LONG.

[nchan7]

Remind me why someone in the federal branch is commenting on a state and local issue in the first place at a conference focused on national issues?
Not that it should be wrong to do so, I just found that it was zeroed in on to be kind of odd. Especially when such cases happen daily without there being an upper class citizen involved. There were many things wrong with all of this being reported in the first place. I can't help but feel a bit cheated people aren't paying attention to all the other news of the day (or in this case: days).

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of all this.

Okay, the guy was following protocol when he arrested that person, protocol people. He was doing his job, by what he was taught. You can make a face, and crack a joke as much as you want about it (believe me I'm no fan of some policemen either), but when it comes down to it, the guy was doing his job.

The neighbor called because they thought someone was breaking into Mr. Gate's house. Or at least, that's what I got from it. If that person was watching out for Mr. Gate's house, how is that bad? (well unless there's some evidence to prove it was a racially charged assumption on the part of the neighbor) Please keep in mind I have not paid attention to recent updates so if there is by now, I'm sorry to hear that.

Anyway, I can understand why it's a hot button issue. It's unfortunate that in a time where we are supposed to stand with one another that such news could pull us apart so quickly.

This does not mean there weren't strained relations before however, and I don't mean racially.
It's quite obvious this country is torn apart by ideology alone.

I feel I'm right in saying that no matter what side of the fence we're standing on we can at least agree we didn't need this to happen. Am I right?

Unfortunately such events occur daily, and without there being a Harvard Professor involved.

Peace out.

[Dubyamn]

Omnileech

It shows that I'm right and you're wrong. You claimed that English common law had laws in place to arrest people for briefly yelling. I said that no, they didn't, and that laws in place were meant for protecting the public safety from threats.

No you claimed that there were no laws in place to prevent people from making a disturbance.

Quote:

You in turn presented an irrelevant law that didn't lend itself to your idea of what laws were like at all.

I presented a law carried over from British common law to the american judicial system.

Quote:

It came out in support of me!

Except it didn't. You bolded a part that said "usually" and took it to mean "always"

Quote:

The law was for things like rioting and actual threats to the public safety! Of course the law is irrelevant since it was from A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT

Hence the "carried over"

Quote:

and the bill of rights DIDN'T EXIST THEN ANYWAYS

True. DOn't really see how it really means anything but you are correct that the queen's peace did exsist before the Bill of Rights.

Quote:

and the bill of rights DIDN'T APPLY TO STATES UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR ANYWAYS.

Hmm? what does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

Wanna try a relevant example?

What would be more relavant about a tangent that laws against disorderly conduct were around since the begining of our country than the law itself?

Quote:

I'm done toying around with batting down irrelevant laws that don't support your argument. It's a waste, it's nonsense. Don't throw anything else at me as support unless it directly supports your claim. Your irrelevant law actually eroded your claim.

According to your gibberish yes.

Quote:

Stop lying.


A neighbor took a picture of Gates being arrested. He wasn't even off of his property before he was arrested for insulting a police officer.

Yes but he was out of his house. Which is really all that I said.

Quote:

Or the police department realized how ******** stupid it was to arrest someone for a non-crime from a police officer abusing his power to arrest someone for making him mad. There's no way the police could argue that the man was disturbing the peace in front of a judge without looking like complete morons. They saved themselves from a lawsuit.

No the DA dropped the charges in an unusual way. The police have backed up the officer.

Quote:

Well someone's not paying attention.

Quote:

According to you it only needs to be a few hours of sleep deprivation in order to be harmful to health and yet several hours of additional stress.

I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING.

Of course that wasn't what I was asking about.

Quote:

So anything that causes stress would also fall under this general rule of thumb? After all Stress has a well documented effect on our health and any and all of the situations you listed certainly can cause stress.

I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM.

I am clearly asking whether it would fall under the same ruling as your ruling about sleep deprivation not putting words in your mouth.

Quote:

You also insinuated that I think that someone can be as loud as they want for as long as they want. You're also ******** intellectually dishonest for equating a brief yelling match to blasting music ALL NIGHT LONG.

And they can be so long as they stop when asked. And the statement was "at all hours of the night" not "all night long."

One is a definative statement. The other is a common phrase. Maybe I should have said Playing their music late or something more clear but the phrase doesn't mean all night long.

[Omnileech]

Quote:

No you claimed that there were no laws in place to prevent people from making a disturbance.

I claimed that there was no law in place to prevent someone from yelling. You're the one trying to twist and alter my words. I have been perfectly clear and honest while you've being nothing but unscrupulous with what you've been doing.

Quote:

I presented a law carried over from British common law to the american judicial system.

You presented a law designed to stop riots and violent outbursts. Relevance to a man yelling at a police officer? NONE.

Quote:

Except it didn't. You bolded a part that said "usually" and took it to mean "always"

Oh but it did. You have yet to come up with a law that says that someone can not yell in public or on their own property. To date you've come up with crap examples of someone making a disturbance in someone else's property, someone playing music ALL NIGHT LONG and long-term stress. Have you come up with anything relevant? Nope. Not even close. You're wasting time on superfluous nonsense.

Quote:

Hence the "carried over"

Go on! Show me a law that says that one can't yell at a police officer!

Quote:

True. DOn't really see how it really means anything but you are correct that the queen's peace did exsist before the Bill of Rights.

Go on! Show me a law that says yelling at a police officer isn't covered by freedom of speech!

Quote:

Hmm? what does this have to do with anything?

Go on! Show me a law that says yelling at a police officer isn't covered by freedom of speech!

Quote:

What would be more relavant about a tangent that laws against disorderly conduct were around since the begining of our country than the law itself?

Go on! Show me a law that says that one can't yell at a police officer!

Quote:

According to your gibberish yes.

According to a law aimed at preventing fights, violence, and rioting, yes. Post a directly relevant example or shut up. I'm tired of your asinine tangents.

Quote:

Yes but he was out of his house. Which is really all that I said.

HE WAS ON HIS PROPERTY.

Quote:

No the DA dropped the charges in an unusual way. The police have backed up the officer.

Oh yes the non-apologetic apology. Dropping the charges means that Gates was doing nothing wrong in yelling at the police officer for asking for his badge number and insulting his mother. There is no such thing as a unusual dropping of the charges.

Quote:

I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM.

I am clearly asking whether it would fall under the same ruling as your ruling about sleep deprivation not putting words in your mouth.

Liar.

Quote:

And they can be so long as they stop when asked. And the statement was "at all hours of the night" not "all night long."

One is a definative statement. The other is a common phrase. Maybe I should have said Playing their music late or something more clear but the phrase doesn't mean all night long.

Or maybe you should cut the bullshit arguing and save us both some time.

[Jay Riot]

Silvia Crow

Redem

As has been covered in another thread, the police were stupid to arrest someone and treat them as a criminal after multiple forms of photo ID were presented. They could and should have acted civilly in that case and simply taken steps to affirm the ID was genuine instead of hauling the guy of in a police car.

And what of Obama calling the police stupid and commenting on a situation that he does not have all the facts of?

What? The police were ******** stupid. End of story. God forbid we have a president who talks like a normal American. Isn't that what the right wanted anyway? An average speaking Joe?

Is the only argument on this "He should have let the police ******** him, that's what they're there for!"? It's actually illegal to get harassed by cops and b***h about it.

I'd love to be able to go on someone else's property, put them in handcuffs, then when they yell at me to leave them alone, charge them with 'disorderly conduct' (which I ******** caused!). Cops are above the law.
If a citizen did this they'd get serious punishment, cops just say "our bad" and they're free.

[KittyKat127]

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

Omnileech

BlueCollarJoe

So getting belligerent and baselessly automatically accusing someone of being racist while yelling at them is fine and dandy. Gotcha.

Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

Nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why do you hate white folks so much and automatically make them guilty and claim the black did nothing out of line?

You have got to be ******** kidding me. Accusing someone of being racist is protected speech. Belligerent speech, rude speech and attitude is protected speech. The man had a constitutional right to act the way he did and what do you do? You support arresting him for it! You hate the first amendment! Don't back out of it now that you've been called on it! You don't support the first amendment when you don't agree with what the people have to say!

Don't change the subject by calling me a racist.

dude gates said, "you dont know who you are messing with!" that can be easily interpreted as a threat. also by law speaking in a load tone angrily at another person is called assault (verbal) and you can be arrested for it. gates was wrong and the damn man knows it. all he had to do was show his id from the start and that would have no happened. someone called about a break in. the cop was just doing his job and gates blow in his face.

that just to show you--you can be a professor and still be stupid.

p.s.
if he talked in a normal tone of voice he can say whatever the ******** he wants and he would have not got'n arrested as long as it was not threatening.

[Mokie7]

This issue is pretty much done now, as it's abundantly clear what was going on.

1) It's a race issue. The officer had no other reason or explanation for why this ended in an arrest.
2) It's a property issue. A man was arrested for doing on his property what is entirely legal for him to do.
3) It's a partisan issue. Those who are already decidedly against Obama in every way are using this as another opportunity to pull off a cheap attack.

All in all, Obama was right and butthurt conservatives are wrong.

[Wendigo]

Dubyamn

Harvard police were probably the closer to the area than officer Figueroa so we can't really speculate that Figueroa was there before the Harvard police arrived.

They're both pretty close. If Google Maps is any indication, then if it took any longer than six minutes for Crowley to get inside, acquire Gates' bona fides, and step back out, then an officer would have already arrived from the precinct house (125 6th street) before the Harvard Police were even called. If they redirected an officer on patrol who was closer, it would be less time.

I'm not sure which part of campus they'd dispatch campus police from, but if they both started at the same time (which they didn't), campus police would have an advantage.

Quote:

I see one attempt to get Gates to leave the house in the beginning after that Crowley says that he is leaving the house but would be willing to talk outside. Gates followed him outside of his own volition with no prodding from the police.

Top of page 2; "I asked if he would step onto the porch and speak with me." Middle of that paragraph; "I assured him that I was responding to a call and that the caller was outside." Middle of page two; "I told Gates that I was leaving, and that I would speak to him outside."

Top of the next paragraph; "I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside."

Followed by; "At least seven unidentified passers-by were watching Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence."

Quote:

Also if he was so focused on getting his name and badge number how is it that he missed the badge and name tag in full view?

Offhand, it could have something to do with being nearly sixty and clearly having bad eyes.

Quote:

Demanding his name and badge number was nothing more than an excuse to keep yelling.

Could be, although if you're going to sue for wrongful arrest, it helps to know who wrongfully arrested you.

[Omnileech]

Quote:

dude gates said, "you dont know who you are messing with!" that can be easily interpreted as a threat

See Dubyamn? When people on your side all argue like this then maybe your argument is flawed.
If what Gates said was a threat then it wasn't a physical one. The most Gates could have done in that situation is get the man fired which he kinda did after the fact.

There's nothing illegal about that kind of threat. The kind of threat that is illegal is threatening someone's life or health or to their property. Did Gates do that? No.

Quote:

also by law speaking in a load tone angrily at another person is called assault (verbal) and you can be arrested for it.

No. Yelling at someone is not illegal and I dare you to find any state that has such a law on the books for exactly the reason you stated. I can not, for instance, be put in prison for yelling at someone to get off my property.

Quote:

gates was wrong and the damn man knows it.

For what? Yelling at someone? Insulting someone? He did nothing illegal and it was his house. The police had no business staying on his property the second after he knew that Gates wasn't a burglar. The officer instead chose to arrest Gates even after he determined the man did nothing illegal.

Quote:

all he had to do was show his id from the start and that would have no happened. someone called about a break in. the cop was just doing his job and gates blow in his face.

Yeah, people have the right to get angry. So what? It's amazing how you people expect people to be completely subservient as if people are supposed to serve the police and not the other way around. The officer's presence was the cause of the problem. What did he have to do? Walk away once he found out that Gates owned the home. He didn't.