Just one question

[lexanman]

I would like just one question answered here. No race injections. No emotions. Just a very objective question answered. In a strictly legal sense



What was Mr. Gates' crime?

[Sebass1271]

1. Being Black.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Disturbing the peace -

and the definition of that particular offense in Massachusetts is, as I recall, quite broad.............

[geckosfeet]

5. Disturbing the peace, in his own house, with no one else around.

[JayMusgrove]

8. If you are black, you can be arrested for that..........because

you are black......and have an attitude that believes you can be arrested for that.

[MercutioATC]

10. No, doing it in public with other people around.

Actually, it was "disorderly conduct", not "disturbing the peace", but Gates did it on his front porch in front of law enforcement officers and civilians.

You may disagree with whether Gates' behavior should be a violation of law, but there's no need to misrepresent the facts of the case.

[lexanman]

13. I've been interested in these threads now for a while

I just would like to know what Gates' crime was.


I got disorderly conduct, but thats the charge.

Im asking what was his crime?

[MercutioATC]

14. You're asking what behavior resulted in the charge?

[lexanman]

17. yes

what criminal behavior did Mr. Gates exhibit?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

38. No one knows -

Mr. Gates published a piece in theroot that indicated there had been an exchange between him and the officer, but his account didn't say what it was.

The officer's report is his side of the story, but until we hear Mr. Gates's side, we can't know what happened.............

[lexanman]

42. I would think his crime would be in the report.

Where is the crime listed that Gate's committed. I can't find it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. You'll need to see the magistrate's docket -

that might be online. Check the Cambridge court web site......

[MercutioATC]

46. I don't believe the charge made it that far.

The charges were dropped before the court became involved, to the best of my knowledge.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

48. The best of your knowledge,

that's not a good way to go. Not ever.

He was mugshot, he was booked, he was held. Why do you think they "dropped charges" if there were no charges brought?

[MercutioATC]

49. It appears that my knowledge exceeds yours in this case,

He was booked. That doesn't mean that the case was ever assigned to a Magistrate. Since the charges were dropped so quickly, it's entirely possible that the case never made it to docket...in which case the court wouldn't have a record of it.

I didn't say that there WAS no court record. I stated that, to the best of my knowledge, the case didn't make it that far...based on the fact that there's been no court information AND "my knowledge" that a booking does not always result in court records.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. Once it's entered, along with the prisoner,

it automatically gets forwarded. That's how bail is set, and other details are tended to.

Now, in realistic terms, I defy anyone to find those documents.

Your knowledge needs expanding. Ask a local criminal lawyer..................

[MercutioATC]

52. Gates was arrested on a Thursday. Charges were dropped the following Tuesday.

That's a window of two business days.

What makes you think that even IF the court had any information that it would be any more than the charge and incident report?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

55. Ask your local lawyer -

[MercutioATC]

59. Actually, timeliness depends on a lot of factors...

...the individual jurisdiction being one of them.

Even IF the court did actually start a file, what might it contain that we don't already have?

[MercutioATC]

44. The applicable Mass. statute:

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses

Section 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.

The behavior that was in violation of this statute was publicly harassing another person.


You may disagree with whether Gates' actions should be illegal...and I'm not addressing that here. I'm posting the statute and behavior that violates that statute.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

51. Good find!

But I saw another statute copied and it was quite different. No "crimes against chastity," etc..............

[MercutioATC]

54. The incident report gives "c272 S53" as the "Incident Type/Offense".

I posted the text of c272 S53.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

56. Good find

[MercutioATC]

57. The other definition posted seems to be an appellate court summary of the statute.

[lexanman]

60. I looked in the police report.

I must have missed that where it said he was "publicly harrassing another person". Can you find that again for me?

Where in the report does it say he was a disorderly person because he was (fill in the blank) or disturbing the peace because he was (fillin the black) I cant seem to find that anywhere.

[MercutioATC]

62. From the incident report:

"When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, md at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest."

...unless you don't consider yelling that a person is a racist in public to be "publicly harassing another person"...

[lexanman]

68. no, in fact that is not a crime. yelling at another person in public is not a crime

therefore this was an unlawful arrest. Unless you can show me the statute that says yelling at another person in public is a crime

[Tangerine LaBamba]

71. Oh, you might want to reconsider that remark -

it's all about content and intensity.

Big words. Try them on.

This is fun, I must admit.......................

[MercutioATC]

73. Damn, we agree on this.

You're exactly right.

[lexanman]

74. I read the report now several time

I dont see where the content and intensity rose to the level of a crime. You would think that would be in the incident report, don't you?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

75. The word "racist"

might not be inflammatory to you, but it is to others, and they're the ones who know the rules...............

[lexanman]

79. saying the word racist is not a crime.

Gates implied that the officer was racist by saying "this is how you treat a black man in America?". That is not a crime. Being inflammatory is not a crime. When talk show hosts go on the air and accuse people of harboring racism, it is not a crime. Its called Free Speech.

The point that is being run around, ducked under, pushed away is that no crime was committed, making this an unlawful arrest.

[MercutioATC]

85. It is when you yell it at another person in public.

You may not like that, but it's a violation of the law nonetheless.

[lexanman]

89. it is not.

That is not true. It is not what I like or not. If I yelled at you in public, it is not a crime. The Tea Party members shouting when they gather, would that be a crime to you? When they yell at other bystanders, would that be a crime? uh No. It is no violation of any law. Unlawful arrest. Plain and simple.

[MercutioATC]

90. That's simply not accurate, but you're free to test your theory as much as you'd like.

Laws are often enforced inconsistently, but that doesn't change the fact that yelling offensive comments at another person in public IS a violation of one or more statutes.

[lexanman]

91. list them

and show valid link that Dr Gates was yelling offensive comments. List the statutes. I want to see the statute that says "yelling offensive comments" is a crime.

[lexanman]

64. nothing in the incident report

suggests that C272S53 in relation to disorderly person or disturbers of the peace was voilated. There is no behavior listed that violated the statute. I again will say I saw nothing in the incident report stating Mr Gates was "publicly harrassing another person". This seems to be an unlawful arrest.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

65. Then you can't read........

No wonder you're having such a hard time.

Ask your Mom to help you with it..........................

[lexanman]

69. I can in fact read.

see like you are getting desparate because you can't answer my question or point to the crime. My mom helped me plenty. Thanks for thinking of me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

72. I am thinking of you,

and enjoying the show. You've shown your cards 'way too soon, but this one - parsing language - is just irresistible....................

[lexanman]

76. parsing language is called semantics. It's a branch of Linguistics

Im not parsing language. Im asking a very simple question that has yet to be answered. You said we don't know. Then another poster said yes we do...it's was for "publicly harrassing another person", which when I looked again, those english words were not in the report. So which is it. Do we know or don;t we?

Seems the cards have definitely been shown, and as Im glad you are open to anything, when the audio and video come out of the incident, you won't be suprised. And I promise not to gloat.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

77. Ohhhhhhhh

You clearly have insider information. Audio AND video, eh? You are way cool.

I'm positively dazzled.

And you wrote "semantics"!!!! And "linguistics"!!! Just to show off that you know what parsing language means - sort of.

That was impressive.

But you can't understand a police report.

Life is full of small agonies, poor honey.

So, you never found that language you were seeking. Tell you what - stay away from the Constitution. It will set you into a frenzy, and, really, no one wants that to happen.

I have to quit you now, because it's down to playing with my food, and, really ............................

[lexanman]

80. truth

really gets under your skin, doesn't it? It's ok. I enjoyed talking about it. Hope you did too.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

81. No, stupidty just gets tiresome -

you showed no truth, none at all. In fact, your pitiful deception was fun to play with, but the seriousness with which you pursued it just showed you up for the poseur that you are, and you made absolutely no difference. But you did entertain me while I was waiting for something to finish.

What you do need to consider is how badly you need attention, and if you are so certain of your position on a matter about which no one yet has the complete story, why are you so intent on trying to influence others?

See, I broke my promise not to play with my food again, but I honestly believe that almost all human beings are salvageable.

I may be wrong, but still I try.....................

[lexanman]

83. I posted the article. You are the one who continually posts to my replies.

If you think Im wrong and a broken human being, why bother. And yes, I am very certain of my position as you are of yours. Im not trying to influence anyone. Like I said, when the audio and video comes out, I hope the people who support the officers position are not suprised.

[MercutioATC]

78. Actually, I DID answer you in my post.

These are the English words"


"When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, md at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest."

[lexanman]

82. yelling, accusing the officer of racial bias and telling him

that he had not heard the last of him is free speech. It is not tumultuous behavior. The officer warned falsely, as this is protected free speech. The way the report was written was almost word for word to cover for the officers false charges. There is audio and video that the officials are mulling over releasing. I cant wait for it to come out. I guess we both will see. If this was in fact exactly what happened it still would not rise to the level of disorderly conduct.

[MilesColtrane]

86. Depends on what words he was yelling at the cop.

A hearty, "Fuck you, motherfucker." or "Gargle my balls you racist bitch." in public could be construed as lewd speech and thus an arrestable offense according to 272/53.

[lexanman]

87. somehow

I can't see Dr Gates saying those things. Swearing at a cop by the way, is also protected speech, just like flipping him the finger. Dr Gates was repeatedly yelling for the officer's badge numberand name. If that is considered disorderly agitation or a violent outburst, then my name is moonunit. Unlawful arrest. Period.

[MilesColtrane]

92. If indeed he was arrested for swearing in public, which that law appears to prohibit,..

...then it is an unconstitutional law.

Maybe that's why the charge was dropped.

:shrug:

[lexanman]

94. he was charged with disorderly conduct.

There are other equally unconsitutional laws. There are other laws which he should have been arrested for if he indeed was violently swearing. Obesenity, harrassment, he was charged with neither.

Tumult, which is the basis for a disorderly conduct I posted the definiton before. None of his behavior met the criteria for being tumultuous. It was an unlawful arrest and the reason for it being dropped. The law is an easy way to allow cop to make arrests when they feel slighted or their feelings hurt.

The identity of Dr Gates was established and at that very point the officer had no reason to be there. The arrest happened after his identity was known, AND after another police dept had been called. There was no reason to call for any type of backup when Dr Gates' identity was known. The only point was to provide cover for the officer because he wanted to arrest him for not showing his papers in the proper respect, and daring to question the officer for identification.

The point was made that most disorderly charges are dropped in the vast majority of cases and that is correct. If they are, it would seem a colossal waste of time, paperwork and money to bother to arrest a peron with that charge then. The reason why its done in most cases is to teach the perp a lesson for not showing complete submission and deferrence to the cop. The cop gets to slap on the cuffs, humiliate the person, and now that person has an arrest record for the rest of their lives.

[me b zola]

93. His crime? He was uppity.

This is not limited to African Americans, but the most & the worst examples are perpetrated upon the AA community.

[geckosfeet]

31. You are right. Had the police not congregated around his home, civilians would

have had no interest. I think that there is good argument for charging the police with disturbing the peace. The disturbance that they created was at least as great as the one Gates created.

[MercutioATC]

47. Had there not been a B&E complaint and had Gates not been unreasonable,

there would have been no "congregation" of police.

[abumbyanyothername]

67. If so, someone ought to mount a void for vagueness challenge

Because this statute is clearly brushing up against 4th amendment rights under the circumstances.

[JayMusgrove]

6. Broader for black people, or hispanics, than for whites

White people can get drunk and piss in the street in front of a house in Cambridge....

Black people who yell at police while the police are in their own home, not so much.. arrest them all and send them back to the plantations!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Sebass1271]

22. i thought police force was trained for these kind of

situations (being screamed at or yelled at) obviously this one wasn't. And to think he also thought classes of racial profiling to other cops. It is disturbing that this cop did not know how to handled the situation better.

[lexanman]

9. I thought the charge was disorderly conduct

thank you for replying too. I was asking what was his crime, not the charge though.

What did Mr. Gates do criminally?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. That's still not known -

whatever happened between Gates and the cop, no one knows, and whatever it was continued outside, onto the porch, which was where he was busted.

Isn't it interesting how people completely disregarded what you so politely requested, and turned your OP into an opportunity to spew their nonsense?

Anyway, that's all I know. No one knows what happened, so it's impossible to draw conclusions.

The charges were dropped - that much is certain..................

[imdjh]

16. One correction. "No one knows what happened." Yes, they do.

At least three people know what happened. Gates, Crowley, and Figueroa.

[Sebass1271]

23. who is figueroa and why isn't he speaking out? is

figueroa the driver?

[imdjh]

28. Figueroa is another cop who was standing behind Crowley at least for the "your mama" part

[JTFrog]

29. Officer Carlos Figueroa, Crowley's partner.

His story is they went by the book.

[Sebass1271]

32. I thought crowley said he was alone.

[JTFrog]

36. Read the police report in the links. Figueroa's statement is there. n/t

[lexanman]

30. It should have been in the report

I'll be damned if I can find what his crime was in the report.

[geckosfeet]

33. We know a black man was arrested in his home. No drugs. No alcohol.

You decide.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

35. He was arrested OUTSIDE

his home.

Facts are troublesome things.

Do you honestly think people only act out when they're stoned or drunk?

Really?

How quaint............

[geckosfeet]

37. His property being his home.

Acting out is cause for arrest. I see.

The cops should have sucked it up and walked away.

I have no respect for a cop who abuses his power like that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

39. Since I'm not the charging official,

I can use whatever language I want.

You didn't know that?

Good thing you're not stoned or drunk............................

[geckosfeet]

41. Now you are making some snese.

For a drunken sailor.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

45. You're not -

snese, indeed.

But I do enjoy slumming, and you're perfect.

Now, though, you're uninteresting. Too easy...............

[geckosfeet]

84. Fact - 'charges' dropped.

Implication - officer used poor judgment in concocting the charges for the arrest.

I can see how such a cut and dry situation could be boring, and that in order to make a challenging situation out of it you choose to defend the police officers actions.

Noble, but stupid.

Oh, wait.

[JTFrog]

12. Read the police report: Disordly conduct (c272 S53)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17512830/Gates-Police-Report

Also from this DU post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6138110

The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

[lexanman]

15. that definition is so vague and so broad

that almost anything could be considered disorderly conduct. Perhaps that criminal statute should be abolished.

[JTFrog]

18. I don't see anything that vague. He was not engaged in any of the behavior described, hence dropped

charges.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Nothing

which was why the charges of disturbing the peace were dropped.

[bbinacan]

7. I thought it was disorderly conduct. n/t

[Sebass1271]

19. bitter much???

I didnt realized what OP conditions were until posting.

[lexanman]

21. can you answer the question

What was Mr. Gates' crime?

It's a pretty simple question

[Sebass1271]

24. This was not intended to you.

To answer your question, I still don't know what his crime was.

[lexanman]

26. oops, sorry...

I saw two posts.

[MrScorpio]

20. Contempt of cop in his own home

The only problem with that law is that it isn't on the books.

[david13]

25. Contempt of cop. I agree. But I do think

they say he went out in front of the house, or out to their car, or something like that. But, so what, he just wasn't 'deferential' enough.
Oh yes sir, mr police officer. But they will arrest a white man, or any color for that.

[lexanman]

27. I'll try and frame it a different way

When a man commits the crime of murder, he is charged with murder


When a man commits the crime of driving drunk, he is charged with DUI

When Mr Gates was ( ? ) he was charged with disorderly conduct


Can anybody fill in the question mark?

[Sebass1271]

34. Mr. Gates was in... his house?

????

[MercutioATC]

58. Outside his house, actually.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

40. You're looking to find out

what specific behavior Mr. Gates exhibited that caused him to be charged.

Read the officer's report.

That's the officer's version.

Then we'll someday hear Mr. Gates's version. Maybe.

Or maybe something completely different will become public. This could happen.

But, for now, no one can answer your question............................

[lexanman]

61. The behavior Mr. Gates exhibited would have been in the report

It would have been the reason for the officer to file the charge of disorderly conduct. I can find no such information in the report describing Gates' actions that would have led the officer to file charges. I wonder why this is?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

63. It may be that you're not used to

reading police reports, which are sometimes written in a language that only approximates English as we know it.

But, honestly, you've milked this one about as much as possible.

Good goof, but I think you've bottomed out........................

[lexanman]

66. its pretty simple

I can read English well. I don't see any english sentences that show what his crime was to be arrested for.

Just curious, as you said we dont know yet, are you open to the possibility that Mr Gates did nothing to be arrested for, and that was an unlawful arrest, or do you dismiss that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

70. I am open to everything -

after more than thirty years of practicing law, nothing would surprise me.

I'm prepared to learn from bystanders - how come the media hasn't interviewed any of them yet? - that there was a big commotion, or no commotion, or something in between that beggars description.

I'm prepared to hear that the arrest was good, but dropped for political expediency.

I'm prepared to hear that the arrest was bogus and was dropped to protect the officer.

I'm prepared to hear that both men verbally assaulted the other.

I'm prepared to hear that Jesus Christ appeared in the house, and told the two men to go out there and pretend to be in an uproar, to get Gates arrested so as to teach mankind a lesson about peace, love, and brotherhood.

I'm prepared to hear that the officer's dog told him to arrest a black man that day when he went to work.

I'm prepared to hear that Gates beat the living hell out of a couch with his cane before he went after the officer.

I'm prepared to hear that Gates was in the wrong house, but nobody wants to say anything because they're all embarrassed.

I'm prepared for anything..............................

[seabeyond]

53. he wasnt .... orderly???? n/t

[omega minimo]

88. "Tumultuousness"

aka "Uppityness"

[jeanpalmer]

95. It was a bogus charge

especially considering the circumstance that Gates was legally entering his home and was not a burglar. If Gates had threatened the officer with bodily harm, that probably would have been a crime. But requesting the officer's name, accusing him of racial bias, and telling him that he had not heard the last of him are not crimes. So what was the crime? From the officer's report, it appears being loud and persistent was the crime. That isn't a crime either. The officer tried to build his case by saying that citizens and police officers were "surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst." What does "alarmed" mean? Did they feel threatened? How could they feel threatened or be alarmed if Gates was just trying to get the officers name and was letting it be known he was going to pursue the matter? Did Crowley talk to each citizen and police officer to see if they were alarmed? And alarmed in what sense? Hell no he didn't. This charge was bogus, there was no legal validity to it. That's why it was dropped so quickly.

What happened was the officer got pissed that Gates was threatening to file a complaint, and he used a catch all law to get Gates and doctored the facts to fit the law.

I'm surprised MA still has catch all laws of this kind. Most statutes of this type have been found to be unconstitutional for vagueness. Statutes, especially criminal ones that might give rise to arrest and imprisonment, are generally required to be specific about the conduct that constitutes the crime. A crime of "disturbing the peace" is very unspecific and could include just about any conduct where a person raises his/her voice.

It seems to me that there is a real issue whether the officer had probable cause to believe Gates had committed a crime, given the circumstances. And therefore an issue whether the arrest was lawful. If the arrest was unlawful, Gates should prevail in any civil lawsuit against the officer. It's unclear whether Gates will pursue the issue. Looks like he might just drop it.

Beyond the issue of the law, this officer didn't use common sense. He was sent to Gates' house because neighbors reported a possible burglary. Once he determined that Gates was the owner, he should have dropped the matter, even if Gates was hostile and yelling at him. Police get yelled at all the time, and it's not a crime to do so. It's an unpleasant part of the job, but not a crime or basis for an arrest.