Who was right? - Page 18 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**256** 07-28-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

we need to move on....

You can do better than that. To quote a more infamous line "Why can't we all get along?"

aklim · #**257** 07-28-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

We don't know if the police acted "stupidly". They might have acted perfectly reasonably if Gates was very abusive. Only a full audio transcript of Gates would allow you to make a conclusion............and, I'm sure that we, collectively, would reach different conclusions on the level of abuse that is required to generate an arrest.

Obama already knows and without the full audio transcript too. And if memory serves me, without knowing all the facts as he admitted.

Honus · #**258** 07-28-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

We don't know if the police acted "stupidly". They might have acted perfectly reasonably if Gates was very abusive. Only a full audio transcript of Gates would allow you to make a conclusion...

Maybe. If there was evidence that Gates committed a crime, I think we would have heard it by now. So far, all we have is that he insulted Crowley's mother, was arrogant, and a few other things like that. I have seen zero evidence that Gates violated any statutes.

If we have to concede that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the police acted stupidly, then we also have to concede that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the police acted properly. Since the encounter resulted in a man being arrested in his own home, despite no evidence that he threatened to cause any physical violence, I think the burden is on those who would defend the police.

IMHO, of course.

Quote:

........and, I'm sure that we, collectively, would reach different conclusions on the level of abuse that is required to generate an arrest.

True, but I would hope that our conclusions would be based on the law as expressed in the Massachusetts statutes and court decisions, not what each of us individually considers to be "disorderly."

None of this is intended to exonerate Gates. He, apparently, is a horse's rear end, which is his right.

Brian Carlton · #**259** 07-28-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Maybe. If there was evidence that Gates committed a crime, I think we would have heard it by now. So far, all we have is that he insulted Crowley's mother, was arrogant, and a few other things like that. I have seen zero evidence that Gates violated any statutes.

Do you know the definition of assault in the Massachusetts code that would allow the charge of "disorderly conduct"?

I don't know it, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a wide latitude in its interpretation. In fact, the determining factor is what a prosecutor can sell to a jury of his peers. That's an entirely new ballgame...........it all depends on the peers.

WVOtoGO · #**260** 07-28-2009, 03:03 PM

And nothing proves that better than the OJ trial.

aklim · #**261** 07-28-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVOtoGO

And nothing proves that better than the OJ trial.

Give it a break will you? That man is innocent. Why, he is so grief stricken that he can't even think straight. I mean, he is looking for the killer on a golf course. I'm sure he checks all 18 holes for the guy framing him. Probably at the 19th hole to drown his sorrows.

Honus · #**262** 07-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Do you know the definition of assault in the Massachusetts code that would allow the charge of "disorderly conduct"?

I don't know it, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a wide latitude in its interpretation. In fact, the determining factor is what a prosecutor can sell to a jury of his peers. That's an entirely new ballgame...........it all depends on the peers.

I have not done extensive research on it, but here is a blurb from website that seems to cite some relevant statutes and cases:

Quote:

Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:

(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.

And here are some squibs:

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.

And –

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.

And –

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.

Here is more from that case:

[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.

http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml

If you read the statute in light of those cases, I don't see how Gates could be found to have violated anything except the rules of common courtesy and respect.

Brian Carlton · #**263** 07-28-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I have not done extensive research on it, but here is a blurb from website that seems to cite some relevant statutes and cases:If you read the statute in light of those cases, I don't see how Gates could be found to have violated anything except the rules of common courtesy and respect.

I agree.

There was no threat of violence by Gates, and, lacking such a threat, "disorderly conduct" isn't in the cards.

Thanks for the links and the research.

WVOtoGO · #**264** 07-28-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Give it a break will you? That man is innocent. Why, he is so grief stricken that he can't even think straight. I mean, he is looking for the killer on a golf course. I'm sure he checks all 18 holes for the guy framing him. Probably at the 19th hole to drown his sorrows.

Yes...
I'm so sorry...
You are so right...
I fell so ashamed for even bringing it up.

Now, I too, feel grief stricken for ever typing such harsh, senseless words.

Will anyone ever forgive me ?

aklim · #**265** 07-28-2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If you read the statute in light of those cases, I don't see how Gates could be found to have violated anything

except the rules of common courtesy and respect.

Isn't that for the courts to determine? If you want to argue that it is a very "fast and loose" interpretation, sure.

And ASSUMING that were the case, why should we care? If someone came up to you and kept on bothering you or your kids after you have warned him not to and you deck him, why would I feel sympathy for him?

Honus · #**266** 07-28-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Isn't that for the courts to determine? If you want to argue that it is a very "fast and loose" interpretation, sure.

And ASSUMING that were the case, why should we care?...

Why should we care that a police officer might have been playing "fast and loose"? Doesn't that question pretty much answer itself?

aklim · #**267** 07-28-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Why should we care that a police officer might have been playing "fast and loose"? Doesn't that question pretty much answer itself?

That question does. If a cop were to play "fast and loose" with the rules, we should nail him. However I think the complete question should have been "Why should we care that a police officer MIGHT have been playing "fast and loose" with an ass that so richly deserves it? Sure, Gates was inconvenienced but beat the rap. But he didn't beat the ride.

MTUpower · #**268** 07-28-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I have not done extensive research on it, but here is a blurb from website that seems to cite some relevant statutes and cases:If you read the statute in light of those cases, I don't see how Gates could be found to have violated anything except the rules of common courtesy and respect.

If I was out walking with my young boys and stumbled on this my boys would surely be disturbed by a man screaming at a LEO, screaming about the LEO's mother, and the carrying on Gates is admitting to. I and my boys certainly could not play catch, have a conversation, or do anything but shield ourselves from this confrontation. Young children seeing this would be unequivocally be negatively effected by Gates behavior. This is clearly disturbing the peace.

tbomachines · #**269** 07-28-2009, 08:32 PM

Honus · #**270** 07-29-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

If I was out walking with my young boys and stumbled on this my boys would surely be disturbed by a man screaming at a LEO, screaming about the LEO's mother, and the carrying on Gates is admitting to. I and my boys certainly could not play catch, have a conversation, or do anything but shield ourselves from this confrontation. Young children seeing this would be unequivocally be negatively effected by Gates behavior. This is clearly disturbing the peace.

"Disturbing the peace"? He wasn't charged with that, but if he had been, what are the elements of that charge?

For the reasons cited a few posts back, it is clear to me that Gates did not violate the Massachusetts disorderly conduct statute. The City of Cambridge Code, however, does have an offense entitled "Disorderly Conduct" and it also looks as if Crowley might have had reason to believe that Gates violated it.

Here is that ordinance:

Quote:

.08.010 Disorderly conduct--Profanity and insulting language.
No person shall behave himself in a rude or disorderly manner, or use any indecent, profane or insulting language in any street or public place. No person shall make or cause to be made, any unnecessary noise or noises in any public street, private way or park, so as to cause any inconvenience or discomfort for the inhabitants of the City.

http://library5.municode.com/16233/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setDoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=d69113a8d6a4653ee5ca223441b1cee5&hash=

The problem for Officer Crowley is that this ordinance does not entitle him to arrest anyone. Here is the penalty for violating it:

Quote:

9.20.010 Violation--Penalty.
Unless otherwise specified, any person who violates any provision of this title shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars for each offense.

http://library5.municode.com/16233/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setDoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=d69113a8d6a4653ee5ca223441b1cee5&hash=

The closer one looks, the more it appears that Crowley's arrest was unlawful.