News Is Obama fueling the Gate's incident?

[D H]

If you can't verbally engage a police officer (regardless whether the point you are making is rightly or wrong) you don't have freedom of speech in the US.

False dilemma.

You are acting as if freedom of speech is an absolute. It is not and never has been an absolute right. You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. More to the point, you do not have the right to call people names (the fighting words doctrine), and you do not have the right to express your freedom of speech in a way that a reasonable person would find highly objectionable given the time and circumstances (disturbing the peace / disorderly conduct).

 

[arildno]

And:

Precisely because police officers are law ENFORCEMENT agents, they cannot effectively be that without having added protection by the law, when they are exercising their function.

Without a prima facie deference towards officers of law, law enforcement as such is undermined.

Complaints are to be made&handled in the aftermath, not in the critical situation where the officer has the duty to make difficult decisions on the spot.

Misjudgments by police officers are far more likely to happen if we are licensed to stress them by yelling insults, resisting arrest and so on, than if we are compliant then and there.

 

[Count Iblis]

False dilemma.

You are acting as if freedom of speech is an absolute. It is not and never has been an absolute right. You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. More to the point, you do not have the right to call people names (the fighting words doctrine), and you do not have the right to express your freedom of speech in a way that a reasonable person would find highly objectionable given the time and circumstances (disturbing the peace / disorderly conduct).

The very reason why most Western constitutions explicitely mention that we have "Freedom of Speech" is precisely to prevent people from being arrested for insults or other types of highly objectionable statements. In the US you have even less restriction than in Europe. E.g. deeply insulting Nazi propaganda is legal in the US.

Disorderly conduct should refer to events in which people are disturbed by someone making loud noises or something of that sort. You can imagine te police being called when a drunken man on the streets starts to sing loudly on 3 am at night. It is understandable that the law on disorderly conduct would always be formulated a bit vaguely as the description of a drunk person singing loudly on the street could be very similar to, say, someone who is a bit drunk and singing at a party, in which case there is no problem at all.


There is an implicit understanding here that the police will not just use the letter of the law to get extra powers, especially not if it is only the police officer who is involved in a verbal dispute with someone. The police should always be part of the solution, and never become part of the problem.

 

[Cyrus]

The very reason why most Western constitutions explicitely mention that we have "Freedom of Speech" is precisely to prevent people from being arrested for insults or other types of highly objectionable statements. In the US you have even less restriction than in Europe. E.g. deeply insulting Nazi propaganda is legal in the US.

Disorderly conduct should refer to events in which people are disturbed by someone making loud noises or something of that sort. You can imagine te police being called when a drunken man on the streets starts to sing loudly on 3 am at night. It is understandable that the law on disorderly conduct would always be formulated a bit vaguely as the description of a drunk person singing loudly on the street could be very similar to, say, someone who is a bit drunk and singing at a party, in which case there is no problem at all.


There is an implicit understanding here that the police will not just use the letter of the law to get extra powers, especially not if it is only the police officer who is involved in a verbal dispute with someone. The police should always be part of the solution, and never become part of the problem.

...what?

 

[Count Iblis]

Misjudgments by police officers are far more likely to happen if we are licensed to stress them by yelling insults, resisting arrest and so on, than if we are compliant then and there.

Police officers are there to deal with the few percent of society who are criminals, or who have psychatric disorders like psychosis who cause problems, people who drink too much, people who use drugs and as a reult of that cause problems, etc. etc.

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit, then I wouldn't have much faith in that police officer being able to deal with, say, a person who has a sudden episode of psychosis on the street.

 

[Hurkyl]

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit,

Looks to me like he handled it quite well -- possibly even being too lenient -- he kept his cool, made several attempts to calm Gates down, attempted to remove himself from the confrontation, calmly arrested Gates after Gates pursued him outside to continue yelling at him, and took steps to ensure Gates' comfort and the security of his property.

 

[arildno]

Police officers are there to deal with the few percent of society who are criminals, or who have psychatric disorders like psychosis who cause problems, people who drink too much, people who use drugs and as a reult of that cause problems, etc. etc.

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit, then I wouldn't have much faith in that police officer being able to deal with, say, a person who has a sudden episode of psychosis on the street.

Fantasy cops to your liking don't exist, Count Iblis.

Precisely because they are just the figments of your imagination, I have even less faith in them than in real cops.

Even though that means I will do my best to my tongue and act with deference towards an officer of law, even if I think I am being unjustly treated.


(I will then have all the more credibility when suing him to hell later on. )

 

[Hurkyl]

Hrm. First, Sgt. Crowley was a racist cop lying through his teeth in a police report, then he's punishing Gates for the crime of asking for identification, and now he's being accused of impinging Gates' right to free speech! It's almost as if people are desparate to avoid contemplating the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a black man tried to get revenge against a white cop by falsely playing the race card.

(Or, at least, made an honest mistake in hastily jumping to the assumption that racism was involved, and is too prideful to back down)

 

[ThomasT]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

There is a race/ethnic problem among human beings. We are, naturally, inclusionary/exclusionary. It's the way we're built. We're animals after all.

And, yes Obama is fueling the controversy, which might turn out to be a good thing. At least it's better than being bombarded with Michael Jackson stories.

 

[arildno]

the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident

Absolutely not.

 

[lisab]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

There is a race/ethnic problem among human beings. We are, naturally, inclusionary/exclusionary. It's the way we're built. We're animals after all.

And, yes Obama is fueling the controversy, which might turn out to be a good thing. At least it's better than being bombarded with Michael Jackson stories.

That's pretty much how I see this, too. Two men got into a stressful situation, and each of them thought that the other should be acting more respectfully, and things got out of control.

I would add that yes, we may as a species have a tendency to group together with our own "kind," be it race/ethnicity/religion/whatever, but that tendency shouldn't be used as an excuse for that behavior (not that I read that intent in your post, Thomas ).

 

[Astronuc]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

Crowley couldn't let it go because Gates didn't let it go. Gates was demanding the officer's name and ID. The officer, who was communicating with his department and others, indicated that he was stepping outside, and invited Gates to discuss the matter. But rather than discuss it calmly, Gates took his rant outside into public - and persistent when told not to.

Gates is wholly out of line, and the cop appears to have acted by the book as he is supposed to. Maybe the problem is that Gates didn't get preferential treatment then? Certainly Crowley had the discretion to let it go and release Gates. But Gates wouldn't let go.

The OP is about Obama's reaction. And Obama was out of line and so much has conceded that. Obama should apologize. Period.

 

[arildno]

As a matter of fact, Obama should apologize, noting that he let his own racial prejudices impair his judgment.

It would be a courageous thing for a President to say, that he is also liable to such hasty labellings, in order to underline the insidiousness of racialism and how none of us should ever feel above others as being wholly unprejudiced.

Or something along those lines, hopefully with a more elegant phrasing.

 

[Astronuc]

The bottom line is that Obama should have remained neutral, especially not knowing the facts. All he had to say was that it was an unfortunate incident and that not knowing the facts, he would decline to comment further. That is his responsibility given his position.

I'm sure Al Sharpton is going to step in and add another ring to the circus.

 

[lisab]

The bottom line is that Obama should have remained neutral, especially not knowing the facts. All he had to say was that it was an unfortunate incident and that not knowing the facts, he would decline to comment further. That is his responsibility given his position.

I'm sure Al Sharpton is going to step in and add another ring to the circus.

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

 

[Count Iblis]

Looks to me like he handled it quite well -- possibly even being too lenient -- he kept his cool, made several attempts to calm Gates down, attempted to remove himself from the confrontation, calmly arrested Gates after Gates pursued him outside to continue yelling at him, and took steps to ensure Gates' comfort and the security of his property.

Gates not being calm wasn't really an issue. The police officer could have agreed to disagree in this verbal engagement and left. Gates stepped outside to say the opposite of goodby. So what? To interpret that as disorderly conduct is just ridiculous.

Astronuc:

Crowley couldn't let it go because Gates didn't let it go. Gates was demanding the officer's name and ID. The officer, who was communicating with his department and others, indicated that he was stepping outside, and invited Gates to discuss the matter. But rather than discuss it calmly, Gates took his rant outside into public - and persistent when told not to.

Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

 

[waht]

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

Actually Al Sharpton jumped first on the racism train just before this incident gained national attention.

From July 21:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1186039

“I’ve heard of driving while black, and I’ve heard of shopping while black. But I’ve never heard of living in a home while black,” said Sharpton, a New York minister who has made a national name for himself by seizing on cases of alleged racism.

 

[Astronuc]

Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

Of course, Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage, so why bring it up?

Crowley wasn't in a position to leave the scene. Crowley had called other officers including officers from Harvard.

Crowley did step outside, and there he found other cops. Gates came outside and made a spectacle (rant) - then began 'disturbing the peace' (disorderly conduct) and ignoring warnings of the officer. When one persists in violating the law, it doesn't leave an officer much choice but to make an arrest.

 

[Evo]

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

No, Gates said that he wants to "teach" that policeman at the White House meeting.

Professor Gates said in an e-mail message afterward that he was “pleased to accept his invitation” to come to the White House and meet Sergeant Crowley.

I am determined that this be a teaching moment.”

Gates appears to have no intention of apologizing and is intent on making matters worse, from what I've read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?_r=2

 

[turbo]

Please recall that Crowley never presented his PD identification to Gates, which he is required to do under law. Crowley showed up at Gates' door and didn't ask if he was OK or if his belongings had been disturbed. He treated Gates like a suspect in a B&E. Gates told him that he was a Harvard prof and when Gates turned to get his wallet, Crowley followed him into Gates's home uninvited. After Gates presented his ID, Crowley continued to question him, at which time Gates demanded Crowley's PD ID. Crowley refused to provide that, and when he ignored Gates and exited his house, he arrested Gates for creating a "public" disturbance. Sick.

I would have been pretty ticked if a cop treated me this way. BTW, for those that have not seen a response to this situation by an ACLU lawyer, here goes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2284526&postcount=139

 

[Cyrus]

Gates not being calm wasn't really an issue. The police officer could have agreed to disagree in this verbal engagement and left. Gates stepped outside to say the opposite of goodby. So what? To interpret that as disorderly conduct is just ridiculous.

Astronuc:
Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

There's always reality, and then there's your opinion. The two don't necessarily agree. Funny how you want to set the rules on how a police officer should do his job. A bit pompous, IMO.

 

[lisab]

No, Gates said that he wants to "teach" that policeman at the White House meeting. He said he wants it to be a "teachable moment". He needs to shut up and let Crowley teach him some manners. Pompous wind bag.

Hmm...I didn't know that comment originated with Gates. I agree, I think he should stop talking now. The more I hear from him, the less impressed I get.

 

[arildno]

He is worse than a pompous wind bag, Evo.
Gates is a racist wind bag.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure HAVARD is loving the attention Gates is getting. I find it hilarious that a Harvard professor stooped to "Yo momma" comments to a cop.

 

[arildno]

Gates deserves to be put into the shame game of being branded as a racist over and over again, until he begs for mercy.

 

[Evo]

I find Gates' behavior appaling. There is no other way to describe it. I think Harvard should rethink this guy, what an embarrassment to them! His behaviour is not acceptable. My friend at work (black) she's praying for me because of my operation, she said today that he's setting racial relations back 50 years.

 

[Cyrus]

Please recall that Crowley never presented his PD identification to Gates, which he is required to do under law. Crowley showed up at Gates' door and didn't ask if he was OK or if his belongings had been disturbed. He treated Gates like a suspect in a B&E. Gates told him that he was a Harvard prof and when Gates turned to get his wallet, Crowley followed him into Gates's home uninvited. After Gates presented his ID, Crowley continued to question him, at which time Gates demanded Crowley's PD ID. Crowley refused to provide that, and when he ignored Gates and exited his house, he arrested Gates for creating a "public" disturbance. Sick.

I would have been pretty ticked if a cop treated me this way. BTW, for those that have not seen a response to this situation by an ACLU lawyer, here goes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2284526&postcount=139

Really, he "refused" to provide his ID?

 

[Evo]

Really, he "refused" to provide his ID?

Apparently turbo was there and witnessed the whole thing. Film at 11. Funny, the pictures I saw of the incident had all officers wearing their badges on their uniforms. And the account I read said Crowley tried to respond and Gates' yelling cut him off. It was no secret who he was, it could easily be confirmed by police dispatch. Hopefully the whole thing was recorded since Crowley was talking to his dispatch during most of the incident.

 

[arildno]

As for this so-called intellectual, he is a post-modernist wind bag, with the following lofty "aim":

"As a black intellectual and public figure, Gates has been an outspoken critic of the Eurocentric literary canon and has instead insisted that black literature must be evaluated by the aesthetic criteria of its culture of origin, not criteria imported from Western or European cultural traditions that express a "tone deafness to the black cultural voice" and result in "intellectual racism."[6] "

This from Wikipedia, and is of course, complete blather.

 

[Astronuc]

Please recall that Crowley never presented his PD identification to Gates, which he is required to do under law. Crowley showed up at Gates' door and didn't ask if he was OK or if his belongings had been disturbed. He treated Gates like a suspect in a B&E. Gates told him that he was a Harvard prof and when Gates turned to get his wallet, Crowley followed him into Gates's home uninvited. After Gates presented his ID, Crowley continued to question him, at which time Gates demanded Crowley's PD ID. Crowley refused to provide that, and when he ignored Gates and exited his house, he arrested Gates for creating a "public" disturbance. Sick.

I would have been pretty ticked if a cop treated me this way. BTW, for those that have not seen a response to this situation by an ACLU lawyer, here goes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2284526&postcount=139

Crowley identified himself by name and as being from the Cambridge Police Dept, according to his police report. It does not go into the details of whether or not Crowley was wearing a badge at the time. Ostensibly, if Crowley was in uniform, he perhaps was wearing his badge, which would have the number on it.

There is a dispute about whether Gates produced only a University ID or Univ ID and driver's license.

According to the police report, Crowley invited Gates outside to 'talk' with him. If that is the case, then Crowley certainly did not ignore Gates. With other police officers present, it should have been clear that Crowley was indeed a police officer. I have seen no evidence that Crowley refused to produce ID.

Crowley could probably have handled it better, but then it was in the heat of the moment. I don't think an officer needs to stop in the middle of an investigation to provide ID to a suspect.


And Obama should have remained neutral.

 

[Count Iblis]

There's always reality, and then there's your opinion. The two don't necessarily agree. Funny how you want to set the rules on how a police officer should do his job. A bit pompous, IMO.

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police, but then in the US you have 1% of the population behind bars.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police, but then in the US you have 1% of the population behind bars.

What can I say, we are awesome. We are the best at everything we do.

 

[Evo]

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police,:

Because this was in the US, perhaps?

 

[Evo]

According to the police report, Crowley invited Gates outside to 'talk' with him. If that is the case, then Crowley certainly did not ignore Gates. With other police officers present, it should have been clear that Crowley was indeed a police officer. I have seen no evidence that Crowley refused to produce ID.

Crowley could probably have handled it better, but then it was in the heat of the moment. I don't think an officer needs to stop in the middle of an investigation to provide ID to a suspect.


And Obama should have remained neutral.

As you can see, all officers have their badges prominently displayed.

And as you can see Gates' yap is wide open.

 

[Cyrus]

Hahah, even Crowley's hand is placed in such a way suggesting Gates calm down. That black cop is also a racist, BTW.

 

[Esoteric]

As you can see, all officers have their badges prominently displayed.

And as you can see Gates' yap is wide open.

So now you can gather from that picture what he's saying and how he's saying it?

Beside that, showing a picture of a man WRONGLY arrested isn't exactly helping your point...a wrongly arrested man is going to be upset.

Also, Police officers are required by law to state their badge number when it is requested, Crowley refused. He just offered his name when repeatedly asked by Gates. The only law that was broken in this incident it seems.

Just to respond to a few more points that have been posted. It doesn't matter one bit if Gates was being disrespectful, that isn't grounds for an arrest. Period. To imply that Gates "had it coming" because of his minute, harmless actions towards the cop is asbolutely assinine.

The officer arrested him on trumped up charges. Gates broke NO laws. Sure he may have acted like a jackass, but how does that lend any amount of credence to the officers actions? Being a jackass isn't an arrestable offense.

Great Time article that some of you should read.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html?artId=1912778?contType=article?chn=us

 

[Astronuc]

I can't tell from that picture if any of those officers is Crowley. I haven't seen a picture of Crowley at the time of the Gates's arrest.

If Crowley was in uniform like those officers in the picture, then ostensibly Gates could have seen the badge, and possibly the number.

 

[Evo]

So now you can gather from that picture what he's saying and how he's saying it?

Beside that, showing a picture of a man WRONGLY arrested isn't exactly helping your point...a wrongly arrested man is going to be upset.

But he wasn't wrongly arrested. And show me where I said what he was saying. I said he had his yap open, and he does.

Gates wasn't arested for being "disrespectful". I'm really surprised that he wasn't also charged with interfering with a police officer on top of disorderly conduct.

How Does a Court Determine if Non-physical Interference Constitutes Resisting or Obstructing a Police Officer?

As long as the facts show a good amount of interference with police, it's still possible to be charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer.

What are Some Examples of Non-physical Interference Charged as Resisting or Obstructing a Police Officer?

The following examples come from actual cases where resisting or obstructing a police officer was found:

■Questioning an officer's authority
■Giving an officer false information
■Using profanity directed at an officer
■Advise or incite others in their dealings with an officer
■Refusing to accept a parking ticket or speeding citation

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...g-a-police-officer-absent-physical-force.html

So, yes, he broke the law.

 

[Esoteric]

But he wasn't wrongly arrested. And show me where I said what he was saying. I said he had his yap open, and he does.

Read the Time article i linked.

 

[Esoteric]

I can't tell from that picture if any of those officers is Crowley. I haven't seen a picture of Crowley at the time of the Gates's arrest.

If Crowley was in uniform like those officers in the picture, then ostensibly Gates could have seen the badge, and possibly the number.

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

 

[Evo]

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

He started to and was cut off by Gates' ranting. Whether crowley vrbally responded doesn't change the fact of Gates' abuse, disorderly conduct and interference with an officer. the first words out of gates' mouth in response to the officer's request for ID was "Why, because I am a black man in America? hoo boy.

Read the Time article i linked.

That's a biased personal opinion piece. And a really poorly written one at that.

 

[berkeman]

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

Could you please provide a link for that? Does it vary by state? We like to see real links here at the PF (you may be right, I'd just like to see it). If you're wearing a badge with a number, you're still required to say it out loud when demanded during an arrest?.

 

[Astronuc]

Could you please provide a link for that? Does it vary by state? We like to see real links here at the PF (you may be right, I'd just like to see it). If you're wearing a badge with a number, you're still required to say it out loud when demanded during an arrest?.

Back in turbo's post #139 of this thread, he cited an article that links to the Massachusetts State General Laws

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

POLICE OFFICERS

Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards

Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

So yes, Crowley is required to present his identity upon lawful request.

It's not clear to me whether he did or did not. Perhaps he hadn't gotten around to it because of Gates's outburst and disorderly conduct - outside of the house.

Anybody who was not present is only speculating what did or did not transpire.

I can only go on the police report, and I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of assumption that his is being truthful.

 

[Esoteric]

He started to and was cut off by Gates' ranting.

Uh no. Crowley was able to state his name three times over Gates "ranting", yet not his badge number? really? I just doubt a Harvard Professor would need to keep asking him for his name and badge number if he received it...it SEEMS like he would have written it down and moved on to telling him what was going to happen to him due to his actions.

As for the link you posted...context, Evo. He was in his home when the "rants" occurred. That was not a crime because he was in HIS house. When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

 

[Esoteric]

Back in turbo's post #139 of this thread, he cited an article that links to the Massachusetts State General Laws

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm

So yes, Crowley is required to present his identity upon lawful request.

It's not clear to me whether he did or did not. Perhaps he hadn't gotten around to it because of Gates's outburst and disorderly conduct - outside of the house.

Anybody who was not present is only speculating what did or did not transpire.

I can only go on the police report, and I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of assumption that his is being truthful.

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

 

[Evo]

When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

If you read the police report you will see that there were grounds for arrest on at least two counts. There were witnesses, both police and civilian. These witnesses have made statements as to Gates' behavior and they back up the officer. No one that witnessed the event backs up Gates' version.

 

[Astronuc]

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

No. There is no indication that Crowley broke the law.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

Such a link is a unofficial transcript of Gates's view. The statements therein appear to contradict the police report.

Of course there are two sides to this story/conflict.

At the time Gates made his request for the officers ID, he was a suspect. Was his request lawful? If Crowley did not produce his ID at that point, was Crowley in violation of the particular Mass. General Law? Were there mitigating circumstances, e.g., the officer was in the middle of an investigation, in which case Gates's outburst was an interference with the law?

 

[Esoteric]

No. There is no indication that Crowley broke the law.

Such a link is a unofficial transcript of Gates's view. The statements therein appear to contradict the police report.

Of course there are two sides to this story/conflict.

At the time Gates made his request for the officers ID, he was a suspect. Was his request lawful? If Crowley did not produce his ID at that point, was Crowley in violation of the particular Mass. General Law? Were there mitigating circumstances, e.g., the officer was in the middle of an investigation, in which case Gates's outburst was an interference with the law?

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Uh no. Crowley was able to state his name three times over Gates "ranting", yet not his badge number? really? I just doubt a Harvard Professor would need to keep asking him for his name and badge number if he received it...it SEEMS like he would have written it down and moved on to telling him what was going to happen to him due to his actions.

Have you ever dealt with this sort of situation before? As an authority figure? I have and can assure you its not uncommon.

As for the link you posted...context, Evo. He was in his home when the "rants" occurred. That was not a crime because he was in HIS house. When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

According to the police reports and witness accounts Gates followed Crowley outside and continued ranting at him and/or his audience in general.

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

And there is nothing detering Gates from making the story out any way he pleases. The police officer could lose his job for falsifying any information in his report.

 

[Phrak]

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

The moral of the story: always pack a lawyer.