911 call and radio transmission

[_Simpson_ 250]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

So what?

It's his right to do that, surely...

I must shake my head here, I think you are purposely trying to be confusing, entertainment for you or something. He claimed there was racial profiling and Im saying most aren't going to believe that silly story plain and simple.

Don't shake your head too hard - something might come loose

Seriously though - what does it matter who believes his story or not? Its his interpretation of the events he experienced - just as the police officers are of his own. Noone is going to get to the bottom of it, regardless of how much 3rd hand analysis is done on the internet.

I mean... what do you think is physically going to come out of this? Is Gates going to lose his job and be hounded out of town?

Those are rhetorical questions of course - if there's a lawsuit, then these things are relevant. If there isn't - then the court of public opinion has no bearing on anything.

And likely there won't be a lawsuit- unless the prof goes nuts and files after saying he didn't.

Indeed... so much 'analysis and debate is odd' given the arrest should never have occurred given the obvious.

Again...

ATTITUDE is not a crime.

Again...

the officers were within the law when they arrested him like it or not.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'm tired of the race card being used as an excuse in actual cases of racism too.

You neednt be because when the racial card is thrown out in this country it is take very seriously. Ask Sharpton and his cronies.

[HAL 9000 96]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

So what?

It's his right to do that, surely...

I must shake my head here, I think you are purposely trying to be confusing, entertainment for you or something. He claimed there was racial profiling and Im saying most aren't going to believe that silly story plain and simple.

Don't shake your head too hard - something might come loose

Seriously though - what does it matter who believes his story or not? Its his interpretation of the events he experienced - just as the police officers are of his own. Noone is going to get to the bottom of it, regardless of how much 3rd hand analysis is done on the internet.

I mean... what do you think is physically going to come out of this? Is Gates going to lose his job and be hounded out of town?

Those are rhetorical questions of course - if there's a lawsuit, then these things are relevant. If there isn't - then the court of public opinion has no bearing on anything.

And likely there won't be a lawsuit- unless the prof goes nuts and files after saying he didn't.

Indeed... so much 'analysis and debate is odd' given the arrest should never have occurred given the obvious.

Again...

ATTITUDE is not a crime.

Again...

the officers were within the law when they arrested him like it or not.

Yeah... uh huh.

In this case, for the confused- its not a question of a lawful arrest but of a frivolous one. Hence the possibility for a tenable lawsuit is real. Although it likely wouldn't go anywhere due to the obvious and different interpretations involved by those with clear slants on the issue.

I'm tired of the race card being used as an excuse in actual cases of racism too.

You neednt be because when the racial card is thrown out in this country it is take very seriously. Ask Sharpton and his cronies.

Humor fail detected.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What are these "lots of reasons"?

Seems like a total non story to me, and would be if Gates wasn't famous.

Nothing is going to come out of this except some measure of embarrassment for the people involved.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

So what?

It's his right to do that, surely...

I must shake my head here, I think you are purposely trying to be confusing, entertainment for you or something. He claimed there was racial profiling and Im saying most aren't going to believe that silly story plain and simple.

Don't shake your head too hard - something might come loose

Seriously though - what does it matter who believes his story or not? Its his interpretation of the events he experienced - just as the police officers are of his own. Noone is going to get to the bottom of it, regardless of how much 3rd hand analysis is done on the internet.

I mean... what do you think is physically going to come out of this? Is Gates going to lose his job and be hounded out of town?

Those are rhetorical questions of course - if there's a lawsuit, then these things are relevant. If there isn't - then the court of public opinion has no bearing on anything.

And likely there won't be a lawsuit- unless the prof goes nuts and files after saying he didn't.

Indeed... so much 'analysis and debate is odd' given the arrest should never have occurred given the obvious.

Again...

ATTITUDE is not a crime.

Again...

the officers were within the law when they arrested him like it or not.

Yeah... uh huh.

In this case, for the confused- its not a question of a lawful arrest but of a frivolous one. Hence the possibility for a tenable lawsuit is real. Although it likely wouldn't go anywhere due to the obvious and different interpretations involved by those with clear slants on the issue.

I'm tired of the race card being used as an excuse in actual cases of racism too.

You neednt be because when the racial card is thrown out in this country it is take very seriously. Ask Sharpton and his cronies.

Humor fail detected.

according to a second officers he was shouting while on the porch. Once again the officers were within the law when they arrested him regardless if you like the law or not.

Your sense of humor is hardly my measuring stick, so your Humor fail comment means nothing to me.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

Libs got short memories when it comes to their own.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The flaw in your carefully crafted argument is that I don't give a ####### about Gates.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

Libs got short memories when it comes to their own.

aint that true, they sure do

Edited July 27, 2009 by looking_up

[HAL 9000 96]

according to a second officers he was shouting while on the porch. Once again the officers were within the law when they arrested him regardless if you like the law or not.

Your sense of humor is hardly my measuring stick, so your Humor fail comment means nothing to me.

I suppose you missed the countless examples where police fall into a certain gray area in exercising that 'disorderly conduct' charge. Oh wait! A few of them fell in the very same threads you actively participlated in... so I'm gonna have to go with 'you ignored them.'

Besides... a man's home is NOT public property, one more shining oddity in the police report. Therefore, a disorderly conduct claim as a legal precedent for an arrest on public property is further without merit.

I could really care less how and why you don't catch on to these things- but seriously... check that police report once again.

A short memory is more so one out of convenience.

[alienlovechild 75]

Besides... a man's home is NOT public property, one more shining oddity in the police report. Therefore, a disorderly conduct claim as a legal precedent for an arrest on public property is further without merit.

People do get arrested for disorderly conduct on private property. There's nothing exclusive about it having to be in public only.

"A typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct, in this case Indiana's, defines the offense in this way:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct. . . [1]

Indiana's definition of "disorderly conduct" is modeled after the Model Penal Code's definition, and is typical, but not identical, to similar laws on the statute books of other U.S. states. It covers a large variety of potential acts in its prohibition; "fighting" is perhaps the clearest act within the scope of its prohibition. What is "tumultuous conduct," what constitutes "unreasonable noise", or what "disrupts a lawful assembly" are matters that are far harder to decide, and as such disorderly conduct statutes give police officers and other authorities fairly broad discretion to arrest people whose activities they find undesirable for a wide variety of reasons. Potential punishments include a jail term, fine, probation, restraining orders, or community service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

[HAL 9000 96]

Besides... a man's home is NOT public property, one more shining oddity in the police report. Therefore, a disorderly conduct claim as a legal precedent for an arrest on public property is further without merit.

People do get arrested for disorderly conduct on private property. There's nothing exclusive about it having to be in public only.

"A typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct, in this case Indiana's, defines the offense in this way:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct. . . [1]

Indiana's definition of "disorderly conduct" is modeled after the Model Penal Code's definition, and is typical, but not identical, to similar laws on the statute books of other U.S. states. It covers a large variety of potential acts in its prohibition; "fighting" is perhaps the clearest act within the scope of its prohibition. What is "tumultuous conduct," what constitutes "unreasonable noise", or what "disrupts a lawful assembly" are matters that are far harder to decide, and as such disorderly conduct statutes give police officers and other authorities fairly broad discretion to arrest people whose activities they find undesirable for a wide variety of reasons. Potential punishments include a jail term, fine, probation, restraining orders, or community service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

Then it wouldn't have been specifically included in the police report.

We may agree to disagree on the issue- but whatever. I can understand being disorderly out of the blue (music, violent/threatening yelling... etc). But come on folks...

There is logical placement of disorderly conduct charges and then there's what occurred. All based on attitude. Pretty lame.

[alienlovechild 75]

Then it wouldn't have been specifically included in the police report.

What? You expect every cop to write out every legal rationale for every crime they are charged with?

There is logical placement of disorderly conduct charges and then there's what occurred. All based on attitude. Pretty lame.

Cops having a command presence and establishing an ordered atmosphere is important. You don't want screaming suspects and victims in tense situations. I don't necessarily believe the arrest of Prof. Gates was necessary but I understand why a screaming person could get on a cop's nerves regardless of the race or class of the person.

[HAL 9000 96]

Then it wouldn't have been specifically included in the police report.

What? You expect every cop to write out every legal rationale for every crime they are charged with?

There is logical placement of disorderly conduct charges and then there's what occurred. All based on attitude. Pretty lame.

Cops having a command presence and establishing an ordered atmosphere is important. You don't want screaming suspects and victims in tense situations. I don't necessarily believe the arrest of Prof. Gates was necessary but I understand why a screaming person could get on a cop's nerves regardless of the race or class of the person.

Heck if he's going to write something that would justify the arrest on his private property- then he should have written private property instead of apparently writing a false police report. See the report, Narrative part, line 2.

Forget about legal rationale, include a basis for an arrest that is actually clear and concise- not open to legal interpretation by internet scholars.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Who's he trying to sell it to?

Seems like water under the bridge now, unless some sort of law suit is in the works.

Simple he hasn't retracted his statement and still stands by it

Libs got short memories when it comes to their own.

aint that true, they sure do

Change is on its way!

[_Simpson_ 250]

Heres a good article Hal that lays it out and explains why the officers were within the law.

Obama/Gates/Crowley: Statutes, Case Law, and Model Code

The first stop on this road is the original police report, and this is the section that directly recounts the arrest.

There are several critical elements in this account which bring it into conformity with the "definition" of disorderly conduct, which comes in three layers:

1. Statutes

2. Case law

3. Model code

The most important layer is the model code, which is likely to be totally unfamiliar to almost everybody, so we might as well start there.

The Model Penal Code is a monstrous document designed to "save the states from themselves" by preventing "consitutional infirmities" in state law, as in COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH M. LOPIANO. (60 Mass. App. Ct. 723)

"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)" of the Model Penal Code (1980)."

So the law against disorderly conduct in Massachusetts is probably constitutional, because it follows the definition of disorderly conduct in the Model Penal Code...

Model Penal Code s. 250.2: "(1) Disorderly Conduct. Offense Defined. 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; or

"(B) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or

"© creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

"'Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access . . . ."

But this language does not appear in the Massachusetts statute under the authority of which disorderly conduct is ordinarily prosecuted in Massachusetts, and a reasonable person might ask how the mere existence of the Model Penal Code can save the Massachusetts statute from "constitutional infirmity."

The relevant Massachusetts statute (G. L. c. 272, § 53) is a relic of the colonial era, and it sounds more like something out of The Old Curiosity Shop than a modern statute...

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.

This baroque language is either explicated or further confused by a mass of definitions and qualifications in a row of subsections, but...

Faced with this monstrosity, judges in Massachusetts have resorted to the useful fiction that G. L. c. 272, § 53 is a hideously clumsy paraphrase of the Model Penal Code at s. 250.2: (1), which I quoted above, and G. L. c. 272, § 53 has been saved from "constitutional infirmity" by interpretation rather than legislative revision.

In other words, constitutional challenges to G. L. c. 272, § 53 are avoided by de facto adherence to the Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1).

Now it makes sense to ask if the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. matches the criteria of the Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1), and it seems to me that the most significant sub-section is 250.2: "(1)(B)...

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

If you believe the police report (and this is an essay about matters of law rather than matters of fact), then Professor Gates probably satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that "persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access" were affected.

That's not the end of the story, and there is never an end to any story involving a charge of disorderly conduct. For example...

Mulvey's conviction was overturned in COMMONWEALTH vs. JOSEPH MULVEY because the location was insufficiently public...

The defendant's mother's property was set back off the road and was surrounded by a variety of different types of fencing. There was a seventy-five to 100 foot long driveway between the road and the house. Entry to the driveway was through a large gate, composed of eight foot high chain link fencing. Green slats had been threaded through the chain link, making it difficult to see through.

The appellate court accordingly overturned Mulvey's conviction, but Professor Gates' house is unfenced and adjacent to Ware Street in Cambridge, and the charge of disorderly conduct probably couldn't have been dismissed on the basis of Mulvey, because...

It also is possible that behavior occurring on purely private property may be shown to affect or be likely to affect persons in an adjacent or nearby "place to which the public or a substantial group has access," Model Penal Code § 250.2, such that a disorderly conduct charge would be appropriate.

http://www.open.salon.com/blog/jacob_freez..._and_model_code

Edited July 27, 2009 by looking_up