No, I'm not...just listening to what they're saying.
So, was it a false arrest?
And, I've already admitted I was wrong. But, the Sgt. did state that he initially wanted the man to come out of the house for safety reasons.
Show me where I say they make that assertion. I made that assertion based on long career in law enforcement and emergency medicine. Unreasonable people do unreasonable things that sometime lead to unfortunate consequences. Arresting him for disorderly conduct precluded that possibility.
I don't know if anything would have happened.
In your stupid, uninformed, Obama-like opinion.
It's amusing how we are to be credulous, sycophantic worshipers of the state when it's military or law enforcement action, but otherwise we're supposed to be scared when the Congress votes for yet another social welfare program (unless it was one rammed through the Congress by Our Lord, Our Savior, George W. Christ).
We get it, Yanni. You hate black people.
What are they saying. Where is the link saying they feared someone would get hurt.
So, is that a straw man?So, was it a false arrest?
You already said you were wrong. That second sentence doesn't make you right.And, I've already admitted I was wrong. But, the Sgt. did state that he initially wanted the man to come out of the house for safety reasons.
There you go making up their minds for them. I don't know why you are calling them liars after your long career in law enforcement.Show me where I say they make that assertion. I made that assertion based on long career in law enforcement and emergency medicine. Unreasonable people do unreasonable things that sometime lead to unfortunate consequences. Arresting him for disorderly conduct precluded that possibility.
You say you know exactly what they think and say they are lying when they don't say what you say they are thinking.I don't know if anything would have happened.
How many old men yelling from their porches did you jail for disorderly conduct in your long career in law enforcement?In your stupid, uninformed, Obama-like opinion.
There's also the possibility there was a burglar, out of view, holding a gun on Professor Gates telling him to tell the cops to get off his property.
You have the luxury of never having been faced with the uncertainty of rolling up on a possible crime and having to make split-second decisions on what the is going on.
I've never seen the term "teenager" used. The reports I saw, were either two men or two black men. And, as an officer arriving at the scene, wouldn't it be nice to know where the other guy is or even if the guy you're looking at is one of the guys? , for all the officer knew, Professor Gates just got home and was unaware that someone had broken into his house -- maybe there were two guys in there with him.
Again, I'm willing to bet there is a whole lot more to the conversation that took place while Sgt. Crowley was outside and Professor Gates was inside than is being reported.
You should give your address to the local police and ask them not to respond to any property crimes. God forbid a concerned neighbor try to save you from losing your worldly possessions and you have to convince the police -- who don't know who the you are -- that you're in the house rightfully.
They knew he was the home (renter) before they arrested him and it had nothing to do with the original call or him being black...at least, according to the black officer on the scene.
That's quite a big chip on your shoulder.
Bad analogy. I guess you just couldn't get through the thread without invoking Bush hatred.
He should be grateful...He should have been grateful before he wigged out and got himself arrested.
I did so hours ago. Maybe you didn't notice.
Tough for the cops. They made a mistake. Can't they take a little when they make an honest mistake? I guess not.... and he only did so to scream at him and generally make a scene?
Apparently there's a compelling state interest in regulating our civility in our own front yards, when the police investigate faulty complaints against us.
That's news to me. I thought LE was unwelcome to monitor our behavior at home once they determine there's no criminal activity underway, and no other outstanding complaint. My bad, doobs.And your front yard is not your castle. Neither is your house.
Gates didn't break the law. The charges didn't stick. The police didn't need to arrest him and they admitted it afterward.The law applies everywhere. If you break the law, tough .
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-25-2009 at 12:59 AM.
Obviously, you don't get it. But, that's okay...good luck with that chip on your shoulder.
Crowley Disappointed Obama 'Waded Into Local Issue'
It's called a question.Crowley said when he first encountered Gates on the day of the arrest, he asked Gates to step outside of the home because a witness reported seeing more than one person trying to gain access to the home and that he feared for his safety.
"I have to go home at night. I have three beautiful children and a wife who depend on me," Crowley said.
Crowley said that Gates refused to step outside the home, so he then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the home.
"I wanted to know if there was anyone else there. 'Are you there by yourself?'" Crowley said.
The officer said that Gates did not look like a person who would break into a home, but the tone of his voice was "peculiar" as he was responding to Crowley's questions.
See above.
Where do I call them liars?
No, I don't.
A few.
You suggested it. You said *questions* were unanswered. Marital status, restraining orders. All things easily checkable within a few minutes by LE. Why were you wondering about them?
To establish an LE state of mind easily dispelled in a few minutes by checking Dr. Gates *rap sheet*, perhaps?
Basically, you argued that the PD's completely speculative (and easily checkable) concerns about Gates might justify their treating him like a criminal in his own home. Weak.
Why would he say anything else?Sgt. Crowley and his commanders still contend he acted appropriately. I would assume that includes the arrest.
The decision to dismiss rings truer to my ear than any faint protestations of propriety after admitting the the arrest was *completely unnecessary.*
Too bad we were talking about the arrest for disorderly conduct. He never said he was afraid for his children when the old man was on the porch yelling.
So was mine.It's called a question.
Yes, I saw you were wrong above.See above.
When you say they feared someone would get hurt because a man was on his porch yelling.Where do I call them liars?
Of course you don't, but you claimed you did.No, I don't.
Really?A few.
How many. Tell us about them.
Did you work as a deputy or a policeman or a constable?
I wasn't.
Yeah, I know. I answered..."It's called a question." Remember? << Another question.
No, I wasn't.
I never put those words in their mouths. I suggested that unreasonable people do unreasonable things that sometime lead to unfortunate consequences. That's my opinion. I don't know if it occurred to the officers there or not. However, I'm betting it crossed at least one of their minds.
No, I didn't.
Nah, not into war story-telling.
Yes. One of those.
Not my problem you can follow the argument.
The only person who has brought up false arrest is you. No one ever said anything about false arrest. You are making up other people's arguments now.Yeah, I know. I answered..."It's called a question." Remember? << Another question.
You just said you were wrong, so you were wrong or you were wrong about being wrong. Either way you were wrong.No, I wasn't.
Except no one said that at all.I never put those words in their mouths. I suggested that unreasonable people do unreasonable things that sometime lead to unfortunate consequences. That's my opinion. I don't know if it occurred to the officers there or not. However, I'm betting it crossed at least one of their minds.
Yes you did.No, I didn't.
So it's safe to assume you never actually arrested and old man for yelling on his porch after you mistook him for a burglar in his own house.Nah, not into war story-telling.
I'm following it fine, thanks.
I wonder if you believe the officer is guilty of making a false arrest.
Nope, you're wrong again.
And, I never claimed they did.
Show me where.
No, I don't recall every arresting a person for disorderly conduct after responding to their house for a burglary in progress call. But, I did arrest a 60 some-odd year old for disorderly conduct after responding to his house after he called the police and complained that his son was stealing from him. Does that qualify? Is that close enough?
No, you aren't. No one questioned that he had to make assumptions when he first entered the home. You think he was afraid for his children when the old man was on the porch yelling.
Since in have said that the arrest was legal, what don't you understand about my belief here?I wonder if you believe the officer is guilty of making a false arrest.
Seriously, you said you were wrong. So you were wrong.Nope, you're wrong again.
You explicitly said at least one of them thought that.And, I never claimed they did.
Read your own posts.Show me where.
So what was he doing that warranted your decisive police action?No, I don't recall every arresting a person for disorderly conduct after responding to their house for a burglary in progress call. But, I did arrest a 60 some-odd year old for disorderly conduct after responding to his house after he called the police and complained that his son was stealing from him. Does that qualify? Is that close enough?
No, I don't.
Sorry, I don't hang on your every word. I didn't recall. So we merely disagree on whether or not the arrest was warranted. I'm cool with that.
Your suggesting that Gates was arrested for merely yelling from his porch doesn't indicate you agree the arrest was legal, though. Because, merely yelling from your porch doesn't rise to the level of disorderly conduct.
I was wrong about Sgt. Crowley wanting to leave the house for reasons of safety but not about Sgt. Crowley initially wanting Professor Gates to come out of the house for reasons of safety.
Clear that up for you?
Show me and I'll retract it. I'm saying now that unreasonable people (which it sounds like Professor Gates was) do unreasonable things (which certainly didn't appear to be beyond the realm of possibilities) that sometime result in unfortunate consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the officers wasn't considering that possibility with this raving lunatic but, if I "explicitly" said one of them thought that, I take it back. I have no way of know what anyone at that house was thinking.
I wrote them and I don't recall putting words or thoughts in anyone's head. You're making the accusation I did.
He was acting like a lunatic, drawing a crowd of neighbors and attempting to incite them against the us (because we weren't resolving his issue to his satisfaction) and he led me to believe he would continue to breach the peace after we left. So, I arrested him...on his front porch...for disorderly conduct.
Yes you do. Everyone was going to die.
No one claimed it was a false arrest. It was a straw man you made up.Sorry, I don't hang on your every word. I didn't recall. So we merely disagree on whether or not the arrest was warranted. I'm cool with that.
But that's all he did according to the police report.Your suggesting that Gates was arrested for merely yelling from his porch doesn't indicate you agree the arrest was legal, though. Because, merely yelling from your porch doesn't rise to the level of disorderly conduct.
I was always clear that you were wrong.I was wrong
Clear that up for you?
Thanks for finally admitting that. Don't pretend to in the future.Show me and I'll retract it. I'm saying now that unreasonable people (which it sounds like Professor Gates was) do unreasonable things (which certainly didn't appear to be beyond the realm of possibilities) that sometime result in unfortunate consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the officers wasn't considering that possibility with this raving lunatic but, if I "explicitly" said one of them thought that, I take it back. I have no way of know what anyone at that house was thinking.
How did he attempt to "incite" them against you?He was acting like a lunatic, drawing a crowd of neighbors and attempting to incite them against the us (because we weren't resolving his issue to his satisfaction) and he led me to believe he would continue to breach the peace after we left. So, I arrested him...on his front porch...for disorderly conduct.
Never said that.
Based on your arguments I thought you believed it was a false arrest. I, later, pointed asked the question. You've answered it. I agree that we merely disagree on whether or not the officer's decision to make a legal arrest was the right or wrong decisions. Again, I'm good with that...you and I disagree on a whole lot of stuff.
No, it's not. The officer specifically mentions the elements of disorderly conduct on which he based the arrest. I think "tumultuous behavior" is one element he was sure to put in the report.
Yeah, you were just wrong about what we were discussing at the time. That's cool.
I didn't admit anything...pony up the evidence I did what you said. I want to see the post.
Not relevant to the discussion. Go get a career in law enforcement and accrue your own stories.
He was arrested, convicted, and paid a fine.
I know he included that because it's in the statue and it looks impressive, but what does that mean specifically? The only thing anyone specifically said he did was yell. That could be part of the tumultuous behavior, or all of the tumultuous behavior.
Except I wasn't. You were the one who got lost.Yeah, you were just wrong about what we were discussing at the time. That's cool.
It's in the thread. Knock yourself out.I didn't admit anything...pony up the evidence I did what you said. I want to see the post.
Sure it is relevant since we are talking about the same charge in this case. Tell us what he did to incite the others against you.[/QUOTE]Not relevant to the discussion. Go get a career in law enforcement and accrue your own stories
I'm not familiar with Massachusetts law. What we do know is the other police officers on the scene support Sgt. Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct so, they must think it met the elements of the offense as well.
I don't think so but, you quibble.
I'm not interested in proving your unsubstantiated allegations. You made them...you prove them.
It's no more relevant than any other arrest I've made. The cir stances are all different.
I just read all of the pages.. arguments ran in circles..
Everyone in the situation acted stupidly. Gates could have been more grateful for the police looking out for his well being. Police for arresting Gates over "disorderly conduct." Obama should have just responded with a "I don't know enough information," and moved on to the next question.
Yoni started out lost. He didn't even read the OP. He's probably only pretending to have read it now. The amount of purely invented detail in his posts is a tell.
Nope, I still haven't read any posts prior to my entering the discussion. What detail have I invented?
And, I just got through re-reading the police report a second time.
Sgt. Crowley did advise Mr. Gates why he was there when he initially asked him to step outside.
Sgt. Crowley also warned him twice that he was being disorderly before arresting him.
I think, under the cir stances, Sgt. Crowley demonstrated remarkable restraint.
Yep.
Around here, people generally assume if A is wrong, his antagonist B must be correct. This is a fallacy.
As you have just pointed out, manufan10, there is no rule against everybody being wrong. None at all, in fact.
If A and B happen to contradict, the possibility that both are mistaken cannot be ruled out in advance; still less is it certain that one of them must be right. Everybody can be wrong, all at once.
In fact, this is one of the likelier results.
There is a bit of that in this case, though admittedly my own sympathies go to the irate man whom LE treats as a criminal in his own home b/c of an honest mistake. Arresting a man just for being irate about the hassle and the mistake is a bit much IMO.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-14-2010 at 02:13 AM.
In what way? What actions by his that would have shown less restraint were justified in your mind?
And tell me what "tumultuous behavior" occurred in this case besides yelling.
Well, initially, he could have forced Gates to exit the home at gun point. After all, it was still unclear if a crime was being committed.
Nothing in any report, article or even the words of Gates suggest Sgt. Crowley was ever unprofessional, discourteous, or loud himself. Sounds like he kept his cool throughout the ordeal.
Maybe restraint was the wrong word. Composure would be more like it. Under the cir stances, Sgt. Crowley remained remarkably composed.
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Yes, he showed remarkable restraint not pulling a gun on an old man sitting in a house not robbing it.
That wasn't my question.Nothing in any report, article or even the words of Gates suggest Sgt. Crowley was ever unprofessional, discourteous, or loud himself. Sounds like he kept his cool throughout the ordeal.
So a loss of compsure would have been justified to you?Maybe restraint was the wrong word. Composure would be more like it. Under the cir stances, Sgt. Crowley remained remarkably composed.
You have read the report. You have read the interviews. All the pertinent information for a prosecution would have been in those.I don't know, I wasn't there.
What was the tumultuous behavior if it was something other than yelling?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
