Posted on 07/30/2009 6:36:55 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
The now-infamous Gates story has gone through the familiar media spin-cycle: incident, reaction, response, so on and so forth. Drowned out of this echo chamber has been an all-too-important (and legally controlling) aspect: the imbroglio between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley has more to do with the limits (or breadth) of the First Amendment than with race and social class. The issue is not how nasty the discourse between the two might have been, but whether what Professor Gates said--assuming, for argument's sake, the officer's version of events as fact--could by any stretch of both law and imagination constitute a ground for arrest for "disorderly conduct" (the charge leveled) or any other crime. Whether those same words could be censored on a college campus is a somewhat different--though related--question.
First, a quick recap. Gates returned to his Cambridge residence from an overseas trip to find his door stuck shut. With his taxi driver's assistance, he forced the door open. Shortly thereafter, a police officer arrived at the home, adjacent to the Harvard University campus--in my own neighborhood, actually--responding to a reported possible burglary.
Upon arrival, the officer found Gates in his home. He asked Gates to step outside. The professor initially refused, but later opened his door to speak with the officer. Words--the precise nature of which remains in dispute--were exchanged. Gates was arrested for exhibiting "loud and tumultuous behavior." The police report, however, in Sgt. Crowley's own words, indicates that Gates' alleged tirade consisted of nothing more than harshly worded accusations hurled at the officer for being a racist. The charges were later dropped when the district attorney took charge of the case.
It is not yet entirely clear whether there was a racial element to the initial
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Good points. “Disorderly conduct” is abused a lot, though. Charges are often dropped when the case turns out to be “disrespecting ma authorita.”
Upon further consideration, and as you aptly point out, that doesn’t seem to be the case here...
No, they *had* been there doing that. They were done. Investigation over. They were now investigating a second unrelated crime, 'failure to worship a cop.'
If it disturbed the peace and caused a crowd - YES, it could be regarded as a crime.
Then I give up. When disagreeing with a gov't official -- heaven forbid in front of other people -- is a crime, then America is dead and we are all slaves to the state.
How did the office not know that someone was behind a door to the right of Gates holding a gun on the two of them. The 911 caller reported two people forcing entry. Gates didn’t respond to the officer’s question about a burglary but rather with a tirade of racist accusations.
Gates had every opportunity to end the confrontation, starting with the moment the officer turned around and walked out of his presence. He didn’t. He chose to continue the encounter. The office respected the rights of Gates when he abandoned the investigation and started to leave.
“That particular example has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with property and contract rights.”
So, you are willing to ignore the “yeller’s” 1st Amendment rights OVER the property/contract rights of everyone else. Aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? The last time I checked, the 1st Amendment does not say you have the right to free speech, but only on your own property.
Again, you ignored my new saying. By your logic, the property owner has a 1st Amendment (and property owner) right to create havoc, panic and endanger everyone - but he would be violating the contractual agreement with the patrons. Since he has two rights, I guess that overrules the contractual rights. Yes? No? Huh??
“Not on my property he don’t.”
He wasn’t on someone elses property, he was responding to a report that made it the scene of a suspected crime, which gave him the right to be there. But you knew that. Or don’t cops have a right to go to a scene of a reported crime?
Exactly. Crowley was leaving. No arrest had been made. If Gates had any "questions", he could ask them outside.
At that point, Gates could have simply decided to end the confrontation. Since he (Gates) already demonstrated his understanding that he did not have to leave his home, any actions he took were voluntary. He was not "lured" outside in any sense.
Instead, Gates freely decided to follow Crowley out on to the porch, not for the purpose of "asking questions", but to continue the confrontation in a public space.
I will bet that it depends on when and where this occurred.
Maybe in the donut shop.
Certainly not at a crime scene or where it would distract a cop from his duties.
b. You're just being silly.
Not when the judge is in his house.
Chasing cops around screaming abusive language is a right?
So we can do that to anyone at any time?
Nice hyperbole. But what does that have to do the case at hand?
>>Well, if the government gets to define “disorderly” then it can define ANY speech against the government as disorderly or causing disorder. So much for the first.<<
No it can not. Conduct is conduct. Speech is speech, and protected by the constitution.
That is why I cannot shoot people and call it “political speech”.
Nice hyperbole. But what does that have to do the case at hand?
What might it have had to do with the case if it incited an onlooker to cause harm to the LEO?
“They were now investigating a second unrelated crime, ‘failure to worship a cop.’”
I am so glad that you are a mind reader and knew that the police had changed to the “failure to worship a cop” mode. Thank you, I wish you had told everyone before the President made an A$$ of himself on TV - we all would have seen it differently had we known this particular morsel of info!
“When disagreeing with a gov’t official — heaven forbid in front of other people — is a crime, then America is dead and we are all slaves to the state.”
First, in your hypothetical, we did not say that the crowd was gov’t ladened - YOU added the gov’t portion. So, it really just comes down to the fact that you are simply anti-police/gov’t and no matter what, the police/gov’t were wrong - probably always are in your mind.
If you play your music (on your own property I might add) so loud that it creates a confrontation between you and your neighbors, YOU are disturbing the peace and can be arrested. If the police arrive (TWICE) and tell you to turn the music down or you will be arrested, and you do not - one should expect to be ARRESTED - hey even if you are on you own property! How is this different than from the scene that Mr. Gates was creating?
But it didn’t. Not even close. So what’s your point?
>>But you DON’T scream at cops on duty. There is a law against that and it was followed here.<<
Yep. You would think that someone of Gates stature and age would have figured out how to do this. You MUST go into Mr. Spock mode. You can say anything you want, but ALWAYS sound calm.
“I’m sorry officer, but please do not enter my home. If you care to get a search warrant you may enter, but as a homeowner who simply needed to free a jammed door, I will not step outside.”
On the other hand, he could have just showed his ID as a REASONABLE person would.
I just watched Cadillac Records last night. There was a time when Gates would have had a bit more “excuse” for displaying such an attitude, but not today, and not in Mass.
That time has passed. Rosa Parks can ride in any seat on the bus she wants.
See post #143. Captain Kirk and I were discussing property rights.
Oooohhh.... A duty to whom? The homeowner? If the homeowner demonstrates he is the person who rightfullly lives there he doesn't have to justify the presence of anyone else who happens to be there to the police. The police can ask 'do you mind if I check the rest of your house?' but if the homeowner says 'I would mind' you're telling me the policeman can do that without a warrant? I don't think so. I really don't.
You can apply your scenario to any situation when the police turn up. 'Oh, we had to search his basement to make sure there were no armed intruders down there. That's when we found all this Nazi memorabilia and he began yelling and we had to arrest him...' It never stops.
But it didn’t. Not even close. So what’s your point?
How were the police supposed to know that? What is YOUR point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.