re: At what point does the officer have a duty to leave a citizen alone once that citizen has made it clear to him that he is not welcome on the citizen’s property?
At the point the officer in this case left the house. He did not stay around and insist he be allowed to check the house, he was perfectly within his rights to do so since the report was there were TWO suspects. Where is the other guy now?
Gates exercised his rights when he refused to step outside in response to a lawful request from the officer and then used even more of them when he insulted the officer. And just for good measure he drew down even more of this stored up rights by following the officer out the door and cursing at him and further insulting him. He was using his rights when the officer advised him he was in danger of being arrested if he didn’t calm down.
Seems to me Gates had a full portion of his rights and chose to piss them away for whatever reason.
Again, Gates refused to let the officer leave the premises without further confrontation.
Gates was perfectly within his rights to accompany the officer outside. He was given those rights, there is no question about that.
It’s hardly unwarranted intrusion when a 911 caller reports what appears to be forced entry into a house. The officer handled this the same way he’s probably handled hundreds of other identical dispatches over the years. Why didn’t those end like this one if he’s the problem. Because he’s not the problem. Others who have been confronted by an officer who is checking on their safety and sanctity of their property have responded differently.
Exactly what rights of Gates do you feel were violated?
Once he found out Gates' was the person who lived there, there was no longer any suspects because no crime was in progress. I don't think a policeman has a right to check your house once that determination has been made. Not without a warrant anyway. No crime = no suspects = no reason for the police to be there.
He was using his rights when the officer advised him he was in danger of being arrested if he didn’t calm down.
The way I see it, the officer is admitting he (the officer) is fully aware that he is agitating Gates and he should have just left. Why must the citizen back down? I mean the police no longer have a right to be there because no crime is being committed. Why must the citizen back down on his own property? The police are going to have to leave pretty soon anyway- why not just go before you agitate the man to the point where you feel like you needed to arrest him? Why not defuse the situation by removing yourself from it? After all, Gates has a perfect right to be where he is- you (the policeman) do not (keeping in mind the policeman knows by this point that no crime has been committed and he is not needed).
Seems to me Gates had a full portion of his rights and chose to piss them away for whatever reason.
You referred earlier as well to Gates' stored up rights (to paraphrase you). I don't believe your rights are like a battery charge- once you use them up they're gone. You don't just use up your 1st or 2nd Ammendment rights by exercising them. If Gates has the right then he has the right.
It’s hardly unwarranted intrusion when a 911 caller reports what appears to be forced entry into a house.
It is once it's been determined that no burglary is taking place. No reason to be there at that point.
Exactly what rights of Gates do you feel were violated?
1st and 4th ammendments. I think Gates has a right to be secure in his own house from unwarranted intrusion and I think he has a right to speak his mind- even at elevated volume- to a government official, most particularly to one he feels like is intruding unduly on his rights as a citizen. Put in plain speak, the right not to be f---ed with by the government when you haven't done anything wrong in the first place.