Obama/Gates/Police fiasco....

[Winehole23]

Not described in the police report.

Maybe the yelling had a tumultuous quality all by itself.

[ChumpDumper]

Dude was tumulting his ass off. Everyone said so.

[Yonivore]

Yes, he showed remarkable restraint not pulling a gun on an old man sitting in a house not robbing it.

He was standing in the foyer...who knew if he was a burglar or not?

That wasn't my question.

So a loss of compsure would have been justified to you?

I never said either would be justified. I just think, by all accounts, Sgt. Crowley maintained incredible composure in the face of Gates' relentless verbal assault.

You have read the report. You have read the interviews. All the pertinent information for a prosecution would have been in those.

No, there would be a criminal complaint and witnesses statements to review before I could say for sure.

What was the tumultuous behavior if it was something other than yelling?

I have no idea...I'm satisfied that the other officers on the scene agreed that Gates' behavior rose to the level of disorderly conduct.

[manufan10]

I was in a similar situation like in the case with Mr. Gates. We are currently renting the house that we live in. I'm tired of renting, so I decided to go looking for houses that were for sale. A few blocks down from my house is a house that is for sale. It's been for sale for almost two years. I was curious to see what the house looked like, so my brothers (one of them a cop) and a friend went walking to go look at it one afternoon. We got there and started looking around through the windows. While we were there, the man who owns the house came over. He thought we were burglars, I guess because we were young, and he called the cops. Of course, I was pissed at the guy, because I had serious intentions about buying the house. I was a smart ass with the owner until the cops arrived. I talked with the cops and answered their questions respectfully. I could have been very vocal about it, but I understood what their job was. If I had been more vocal about it, and then been arrested for it, I would have been pissed off. I had a right to be upset.

A lot of this could have been avoided if people would have thought rationally. I think that there is no one right in this situation, like I said earlier. However, if Gates would have handled things a little more rationally, I think the rest of the problems would have been avoided. However, I think the police abused their power by arresting him.

[ChumpDumper]

He was standing in the foyer...who knew if he was a burglar or not?

Everyone could have died.

I never said either would be justified. I just think, by all accounts, Sgt. Crowley maintained incredible composure in the face of Gates' relentless verbal assault.

So it wasn't incredible, it was simply expected of him. Does he want a cookie?

No, there would be a criminal complaint and witnesses statements to review before I could say for sure.

What else could there possibly be that the police intentionally omitted from their report?

I have no idea...I'm satisfied that the other officers on the scene agreed that Gates' behavior rose to the level of disorderly conduct.

I'm satisfied that they wanted Gates to be arrested and put in jail, but after reading some court opinions, I'm not so sure any of Gates' reported actions rose to the level of disorderly conduct.

What is “disorderly conduct” anyway?

Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 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.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):

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.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:

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

And here are some squibs:

Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.

And –

Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not cons ute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.

And –

Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations cons uted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.

Here is more from that case:

[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml

No wonder the charges were dropped.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, disorderly conduct doesn't contain an element of threat...that would be a more serious charge.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):

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.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Damn, Yoni is wrong again -- even with his years of law enforcement experience and multiple disorderly conduct arrests.

I'd bet that he's wrong about it in Texas as well.

[Yonivore]

Damn, Yoni is wrong again -- even with his years of law enforcement experience and multiple disorderly conduct arrests.

A couple of things.

The Texas Penal Code, Section 42.01 (Disorderly Conduct), has been amended several times since I was on patrol. Even so, a form of the word threat doesn't appear until paragraph (a)(4) and, even then, it isn't the threat that cons utes the offense, it's when a person "...abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner."

I don't recall ever arresting anyone for disorderly conduct that had threatened someone else. Like I said before, that generally elevated the crime to something more serious.

But, you can argue semantics like no one I've seen so, if you want to continue down this rabbit hole, by all means, go ahead.

People can be threatening without making threats and people can make threats without being threatening. Additionally, making threats or being threatening isn't disorderly conduct unless it is done in an "obviously offensive manner."

Finally, Texas and Massachusetts law are different but, in regards to the above, I don't think they differ that much. Not judging by the excerpt you quoted, anyway.

And, while I respect Eugene Volokh's site, he's not the trier of facts in this case but, just looking at the description you posted:

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.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Now, let me break it down for you. The officer made the allegation in his report that Gates had engaged in tumultuous behavior that caused alarm. On the face of it, it appears the elements of the crime were met.

Paraphrasing the above:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the purpose to cause...alarm, he...engages in...tumultuous behavior.

We don't know why the charges were dropped. You haven't seen the criminal complaint. It may never have even been drawn up before the case was dismissed but, just because the officer didn't specifically spell out the offense in the incident report doesn't mean he wouldn't in the criminal complaint.

We can argue the case until the cows come home but, since it was dropped and, likely, there is no criminal complaint by which to judge the elements of the charge as the officer saw them, and since there will be no trial where testimony will attempt to establish the facts...nothing we argue over will be meaningful.

In fact, I think you and I have already spent more time arguing over this than did anyone in Cambridge that night.

I'm done. You can carry on if you wish.

I'd bet that he's wrong about it in Texas as well.

See above but, I don't recall if Section 42.01(a)(1) was a part of the Texas Penal Code then, or not. And, as above, even so...it's not the threat, it's the offensive manner that makes it an element of disorderly conduct.

Making threats, depending on the context and intent, can cause the person making the threat eligible for a whole range of crimes; it's not disorderly conduct, however, unless it is done in an offensive manner, in public.

The general purpose of disorderly conduct charges is not to protect anyone from a threat but to acknowledge a breach of the public peace.

[Yonivore]

Commentary: Obama's rush to judgment on police

An interesting commentary that I believe critics of the Cambridge Police Sergeant would do good to read and contemplate.

Was it stupid behavior or was it an understandable result of police procedure -- the culture, or rather sub-culture, of this profession. People depend on police in a time of trouble but are quicker than lightning to judge harshly when things go wrong. But the most important question in this case is: Did they go wrong?

One needs to understand that the interaction between a police officer and a suspect is just part of a larger context.

When a neighbor calls the police to report a burglary in progress and a police officer is dispatched to respond, a decision-making process begins for the officer.

Police work is about sub-cultural contexts, about war stories, about su ion, about unpredictability, about danger and fear for one's life. Police officers make their decisions based not just on a given situation but also based on their prior experience, the experience of those they have worked with and the stories they have heard about incidents that happened in the past.

A call to respond to a burglary in progress generates a series of images that prepare a police officer for an encounter -- a dangerous encounter that can possibly end with a loss of life.

Not long ago one of my students, an officer in the New York Police Department, was killed trying to stop a robbery in progress. Police officers hear about these stories and unlike the members of the public who forget a story, no matter how sensational within a day or two, police officers carry these stories as their secret weapons. This is part of their armor. An officer responding to a burglary in progress arrives at a scene with a heightened sense of danger, anxious and ready to go into fighting mode.

...

Police officers arriving at the scene of a suspected burglary in progress do not put down their armor of su ion just because somebody proved to them that they are the legitimate occupants of the dwelling.

Police encounters can become deadly when officers assume that, on the surface, everything appears to be in order. It is their sixth sense of su ion that helps them assess the situation in a way that members of the public would not consider reasonable. It is this precise quality of su ion that goes beyond a reasonable doubt that sets them apart from the larger public and can be understood only by the members of the force.

A person usually does not break into his own house -- it is true that it can happen, and it apparently did in this case -- but this is not a standard behavior that, once explained to the officer, should mandate an automatic approach to put down your guard.

The officers look at the scene of the event they were called to as their domain, their turf, their territory, where some order has been disturbed and they were called to restore it. A famous police scholar, Egon Bittner, once wrote that we call the police when "something ought not to be happening about which something ought to be done right NOW!"

The professor may have raised his voice, and this would appear now as justifiable under the cir stances. But, when somebody challenges the authority or the domain of a police officer who was just called to restore order, the discretionary process of the officer is not the same as that of a bystander.

...

There are over 19,000 different law enforcement agencies across the United States. Each agency has its own standard operating procedures and rules and regulations, including the ones that would appear relevant to this case. However, there are no national standards that can be applied when officers respond to a call for a burglary in progress.

Only very general standards could be applied and even then the evolving situation would dictate how officers would proceed after confronting the su ious person. When an individual under su ion becomes agitated, insults the officer and becomes aggressive, the majority of police departments would allow the officer to make an arrest.

I was not there. Neither was the president nor all the others who are quick to pass judgment. What went on in the officer's head is something that I can only guess but, based on over 30 years of experience in the doing, teaching and studying of the police profession, I would venture to say that race had nothing to do with the behavior displayed and that the sub-culture of police work dictated the action, more than any possible bias or prejudice.

[ChumpDumper]

A couple of things.

The Texas Penal Code, Section 42.01 (Disorderly Conduct), has been amended several times since I was on patrol. Even so, a form of the word threat doesn't appear until paragraph (a)(4) and, even then, it isn't the threat that cons utes the offense, it's when a person "...abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner."

It's a threat. You said it had nothing to do with threats. You were wrong. Just accept your being wrong about the law.

I don't recall ever arresting anyone for disorderly conduct that had threatened someone else. Like I said before, that generally elevated the crime to something more serious.

Generally, you were wrong about disorderly conduct having nothing to do with threats.

But, you can argue semantics like no one I've seen so, if you want to continue down this rabbit hole, by all means, go ahead.

You were wrong, nothing semantic about it.

People can be threatening without making threats and people can make threats without being threatening. Additionally, making threats or being threatening isn't disorderly conduct unless it is done in an "obviously offensive manner."

You said disorderly conduct had nothing to do with threats. It obviously does. You were wrong.

Finally, Texas and Massachusetts law are different but, in regards to the above, I don't think they differ that much. Not judging by the excerpt you quoted, anyway.

Yes, they both can involve threats, which you said they could not. You are wrong in multiple states.

And, while I respect Eugene Volokh's site, he's not the trier of facts in this case

Neither are you -- but unlike you he actually knew what he was talking about

Now, let me break it down for you. The officer made the allegation in his report that Gates had engaged in tumultuous behavior that caused alarm. On the face of it, it appears the elements of the crime were met.

What tumultuous behavior? You never described anything but the yelling, which has pretty much been excluded in the abovementioned court cases.

Paraphrasing the above:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the purpose to cause...alarm

So someone yelling "Fire!" when there is a fire is guilty of disorderly behavior

he...engages in...tumultuous behavior.

What tumultuous behavior?

We don't know why the charges were dropped. You haven't seen the criminal complaint. It may never have even been drawn up before the case was dismissed but, just because the officer didn't specifically spell out the offense in the incident report doesn't mean he wouldn't in the criminal complaint.

So you are saying they left critical elements of the crime out of the police report and every interview they have done since.

We can argue the case until the cows come home but, since it was dropped and, likely, there is no criminal complaint by which to judge the elements of the charge as the officer saw them, and since there will be no trial where testimony will attempt to establish the facts...nothing we argue over will be meaningful.

Especially since you didn't even know the laws you supposed to be enforcing.

In fact, I think you and I have already spent more time arguing over this than did anyone in Cambridge that night.

You kept making up like saying disorderly conduct had nothing to do with threats. It's not difficult to prove your made up bull wrong, but putting it in simple enough terms that even you might understand can be time-consuming.

I'm done. You can carry on if you wish.

I hope you are done making up . That would save us a lot of time.

See above but, I don't recall if Section 42.01(a)(1) was a part of the Texas Penal Code then, or not. And, as above, even so...it's not the threat, it's the offensive manner that makes it an element of disorderly conduct.

See above where you said disorderly conduct had nothing to do with threats.

disorderly conduct doesn't contain an element of threat

That was wrong. You were wrong. You were wrong in Texas when you were a deputy and you are wrong now when you are talking about Massachusetts.

Making threats, depending on the context and intent, can cause the person making the threat eligible for a whole range of crimes; it's not disorderly conduct, however, unless it is done in an offensive manner, in public.

So you were wrong when you said disorderly conduct had nothing to do with threats.

The general purpose of disorderly conduct charges is not to protect anyone from a threat but to acknowledge a breach of the public peace.

You can be charged with disorderly conduct if you make threats.

[Yonivore]

Have fun with yourself. I'm done with this thread unless or until the 911 and radio transmission recordings are released.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, you already said you were done after you admitted you were wrong about the laws you claimed to have enforced.

Why don't you stay done? It will keep you from being so wrong so often.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yes, you already said you were done after you admitted you were wrong about the laws you claimed to have enforced.

I don't know if you can call Target Security Guard "law enforcement." I wonder how many disorderly persons yoni ran across in his standard-issue golf cart.

[sook]

You can never take it too easy with black folk these days, we can wander around pretending the black man doesn't commit 70% of the crimes in our nation and perpetually seek forgiveness for the unlawful acts we subjected them to for hundreds of years but it seems now that every time a mistake is made it is blown wayyy too out of proportion.

If it is ok to give special searches to middle eastern men at airports why isn't it ok to hold afr. americans to the same standard?

[sook]

(sarcasm)

[Wild Cobra]

You can never take it too easy with black folk these days, we can wander around pretending the black man doesn't commit 70% of the crimes in our nation and perpetually seek forgiveness for the unlawful acts we subjected them to for hundreds of years but it seems now that every time a mistake is made it is blown wayyy too out of proportion.

I'm not sure 70% is the right number, but I agree it's more than half the crimes, and what are they? something like 12% the population? Then they wonder why people are cautious around them.

Message to all the black leaders.

Lead your own people into being good citizens before complaining about us white people.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Gates and President Obama made it a race issue.

they sure did.

job well done officer crowley.

[ChumpDumper]

Job stupidly done, Officer Crowley. The charges have been dropped.

[ChumpDumper]

One of you bootlickers needs to give me the legal definition of tumultuous behavior as it applies to this case.

[Yonivore]

One of you bootlickers needs to give me the legal definition of tumultuous behavior as it applies to this case.

Why? Do you have no research skills of your own?

[ChumpDumper]

Why? Do you have no research skills of your own?

I looked it up. There was nothing in Gates' behavior that could be successfully prosecuted as disorderly conduct. No wonder the charge was dropped.

[Yonivore]

I looked it up. There was nothing in Gates' behavior that could be successfully prosecuted as disorderly conduct. No wonder the charge was dropped.

Again, you weren't there. And, a police report isn't a criminal complaint.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you weren't there. And, a police report isn't a criminal complaint.

Again, what critical element of a crime could he have done that the police purposely omitted from their report and several interviews?

So far we have an old man standing on his porch yelling.

[Yonivore]

Again, what critical element of a crime could he have done that the police purposely omitted from their report and several interviews?

I don't know. Did any of the interviewers askk?

So far we have an old man standing on his porch yelling.

So far, we have an officer -- supported by his peers at the scene and not contradicted by anyone else at the scene -- stating Professor "Your-Mama" committed the crime of Disorderly Conduct.

Hopefully, so you'll be satisfied, someone will ask the right question some day. For now, I'm satisfied -- based on what I've heard -- it was a legitimate arrest.

I don't see Gates filing a complaint against the officer for false arrest. All he's doing is threatening to sue and using this episode to build some kind of "street cred" so he can finally talk about how The Man is racist.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know. Did any of the interviewers askk?


So far, we have an officer -- supported by his peers at the scene and not contradicted by anyone else at the scene -- stating Professor "Your-Mama" committed the crime of Disorderly Conduct.

So far we have the charges dropped.

Hopefully, so you'll be satisfied, someone will ask the right question some day. For now, I'm satisfied -- based on what I've heard -- it was a legitimate arrest.

I'm satisfied it was a stupid arrest and Gates' conduct as the police portrayed it did not meet the criteria for the charge of disorderly conduct.

I don't see Gates filing a complaint against the officer for false arrest.

As you proved so fantastically earlier, law enforcement officials can be quite ignorant of the law. I don't know if these officers were quite as ignorant as you are, but it's clear the law would not allow a prosecution for what the police say Gates did.

All he's doing is threatening to sue and using this episode to build some kind of "street cred" so he can finally talk about how The Man is racist.

He was already saying that. Now he can say that he was arrested for calling a white cop a racist.

The cops should have just left.

[Yonivore]

So far we have the charges dropped.

Yep. Which as anyone familiar with the criminal justice systems know isn't always related to the validity of the charges.

I'm satisfied it was a stupid arrest and Gates' conduct as the police portrayed it did not meet the criteria for the charge of disorderly conduct.

Okay. You're free to make ill-informed pronouncements just like President Obama. I'll wait until we have more facts and, in the interim, I'll rely on the opinions of professionals who actually witnessed the incident.

As you proved so fantastically earlier, law enforcement officials can be quite ignorant of the law. I don't know if these officers were quite as ignorant as you are, but it's clear the law would not allow a prosecution for what the police say Gates did.

Not recalling a minor subsection of the law that may not have even been there decades ago and, which doesn't really contradict what I said, isn't exactly being ignorant but, whatever floats your boat.

He was already saying that. Now he can say that he was arrested for calling a white cop a racist.

No, he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

The cops should have just left.

What would you be saying if, after the police left, Professor Gates had continued his tirade and carried over to the neighbors house that originally made the 911 call? He's already all but called her a racist in subsequent interviews.

I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibilities that Mr. Gates, in his highly agitated state, would have viewed the police "just leaving" as another racist affront and looked for some way to take out his righteous indignation.