From the "Black People Arrest Themselves" files

[DontSayBanana]

Another question is: if at the Beer Summit, both parties admit they were wrong, will all assembled here accept that and will debate end, or will it continue and perhaps move to a more theoretical plane of existence?

We've got chronically hairy mental palms.

[garbon]

Crowley says that he had a fellow officer move Gate's hands from behind to in front.  This is not consistent with "'Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.' And he handcuffed me right there."

Continue to ignore what I said.

[PDH]

Continue to ignore what I said.

They're doin' that because you are black.

[KRonn]

Governor Patrick of Massachusetts also reacted "stupidly". Right after this happened he said that this was a black man's worst nightmare. I guess, like Obama also, he should have gotten the information before speaking. I wonder when the governor, Gates and Crowley are going to sit down for some beers? At this rate they'll all be drunk, and getting arrested by the cops for being drunk and disorderly...   

[garbon]

Maybe Crowley will flash his badge and ask for professional courtesy.

[KRonn]

Maybe Crowley will flash his badge and ask for professional courtesy.

Lol.. Well, sitting in the car with the Pres, Gov and the Prof I imagine there might be some clout there. Real meaning to the phrase "Do you know who I am?"     

[grumbler]

The source is the police dispatch transcript, which was printed in full by ABC news.  The transcript makes it clear that the "keep the cars coming" was said in the same transmission as when he asked for the uni police to come.  His exact words right after "keep the cars coming" were "Can you also send the Harvard University police this way?"  That proves that Crowley had already seen Gates' ID when he sent that transmission.

You claimed that "He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived."  I want to know how you know that.  The transcript does not have Crowley saying this.

See above.  If you are aware of anything to the contrary, feel free to provide the proof.

You claim that "if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief." I do not have to disprove your assertions; you have to support them.

He wanted witnesses for the arrest of course. 

Why?  He could easily make an arrest without witnesses, and if (as you claim) he had nefarious motives for the arrest, he wouldn't want witnesses.

I can't think of any reason why Harvard Police would be more inclined to Gates' side over a fellow law enforcement officer.  Not knowing the Cambridge police procedures I would have to speculate as to why he asked the uni police to be sent.  It may be SOP that the uni police are to be called for any incident involving a Harvard affiliated person on a Harvard owned property.  It may be something else.  I don't see how it matters.

HUP work for an organization where Gates is a big man.  That would incline them to protect "their own."  But even if it didn't, why would Crowley take the chance?  If the house ownership required a notification of the HUP, then that fact would presumably be known by dispatch, and HUP would already have been called.

The reason it matters is that you are using Crowley's desire for more police as evidence of his nefarious purposes.  If that is true, then his request for HUP presence also matters.

I already have earlier.  Random CPD officers saying generally things like "I support Crowley" or "he made the right decision to arrest" is a classic fallacious argument from authority because they are not valid authorities for this point.

The police are not valid authorities for what powers the police have?  And you are (without any evidence)?  I call bullshit.  You have by no means demonstrated that Crowley lacked the authority to arrest under those circumstances.

It isn't surprising that officers support one of their own.  But the subjective opinion of a fellow officer carries zero weight as to what the law provides.  A prosecutor can't fix a legal deficiency through an officer affidavit asserting the arrest was compliant.

It is cretainly indicative, which your bald assertions are not.

A far more relevant fact is that the Department dropped the charges as that represents an official action of the Department.

The CPD did not drop the charges.  The Middlesex County district attorney did.  And, as we all know, charges are often dropped in perfectly legal arrests.  Had the arrest been unlawful, Crowley would have faced disciplinary action, which he didn't.  That is a far more relevant "official action of the Department."
[/quote]

[grumbler]

The real question now is which poster will have the endurance to get the last word. I'm betting that Minsky Moment doesn't have what it takes to outlast grumbler and Berkut, although he has been putting up a valiant show so far.

The real question is how many shots the peanut gallery will take at a debate that two people are having because it interests them.  My guess is that, now that AR has weighed in, FateRaz and RazFate are not far behind.  Siege will then complain that we use "too many words."  Finally, The Brain will make some crack at my/our expense that will make me laugh.

[grumbler]

Continue to ignore what I said.

As you continue to ignore what I said, Crowley said, and Gates said.

[garbon]

As you continue to ignore what I said, Crowley said, and Gates said.

Nope.  I simply said that both did agree on the point that Gates was handcuffed by a colleague. That's undeniable.

[grumbler]

Continue to ignore what I said.

They're doin' that because you are a black man in America!

FYP. 

[grumbler]

Nope.  I simply said that both did agree on the point that Gates was handcuffed by a colleague. That's undeniable.

Except that, according to Crowley, Ivey just moved the cuffs from behind to in front (Gates was already arrested and cuffed when Ivey moved the cuffs).  Gates claimed that an un-named officer (but not Crowley) both arrested and handcuffed him.  His statement is not consistent with Crowley's report.  I dunno how much more obvious this could be.

[Barrister]

Had the arrest been unlawful, Crowley would have faced disciplinary action, which he didn't. 

There's far too strong of opinions being bandied about here, with not enough hard evidence, for me to contribute much to the overall debate.  But I did want to point out that disciplinary action as a result of an unlawful arrest would be quite unusual.  It is somewhat understandable - whether an arrest is lawful or not depends on a precise legal conclusion, and it is quite possible for a well meaning officer acting without malice to engage in an unlawful arrest.  But unless it's something quite egregious, they don't face any disciplinary action over it.

[garbon]

Except that, according to Crowley, Ivey just moved the cuffs from behind to in front (Gates was already arrested and cuffed when Ivey moved the cuffs).  Gates claimed that an un-named officer (but not Crowley) both arrested and handcuffed him.  His statement is not consistent with Crowley's report.  I dunno how much more obvious this could be.

None of that disagrees with what I said.

[The Minsky Moment]

You claimed that "He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived."  I want to know how you know that.  The transcript does not have Crowley saying this.

for someone who is so punctilious about placing burdens of proof, you seem to have missed the narrative here.  The way I know he learned nothing new is that his report does not indicate that he learned anything new (e.g. nothing about a driver's license).  You are the one claiming that he learned something new; you are the one that needs to provide the evidence to prove it.  The fact that the documents don't provide any such evidence is a problem for you, not me.

You claim that "if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief." I do not have to disprove your assertions; you have to support them.

Once again, you have the burden of proof backwards.  You are the one claiming that at the time he said "keep the cars coming" he believed that someone else wasinside, and that he subsequently was disabused of that belief.   Thus, you must prove your claim by showing that after the time of that radio dispatch call, he learned some pertinent new fact that caused the alleged belief to be dispelled.  You haven't done it and the documentary record provides zero support.

The police are not valid authorities for what powers the police have?  And you are (without any evidence)?  I call bullshit.  You have by no means demonstrated that Crowley lacked the authority to arrest under those circumstances.

The police are certainly not valid authorities for determining the scope of their own discretion.  That is why we have courts, judges and juries, and elected executive officers to oversee police operations.  No free society delegates the police the authority to determine the scope of their power.

Mass uses the Model Penal Code definition of disorderly conduct.   There are two prongs that most be satisfied.  Prong 1 is that there must be either specific intent public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; or reckless creation of a risk of that.  Prong 2 involves showing that certain kind of behavior is at issue.  Neither prong was satisfied here.  Gates' didn't intend to cause public alarm - indeed had to be drawn out the house by the officer in the first place.  While there were people present, they were there before ever Gates stepped out on his porch, drawn by the spectacle of police officers descending onto a private house in a quiet Cambridge street.  There is no evidence that ny of them expressed annoyance or alarm.

But the clincher is prong 2.  It turns out there is recent precedent on this very issue in Massaschusetts.  the Massachusetts Appeals Court has held on multiple occasions that speech alone is insufficient to support a charge of disordely conduct, regardless of whether there is shouting, and regardless of the content of words said.  For example, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, decided only a few years ago, the court held that:

We agree, however, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had engaged in "violent or tumultuous behavior." Commonwealth v. Whiting, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 918 , 920 (2003).  . . "To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). The Commonwealth argues that the defendant engaged in " 'tumultuous behavior' because he created a public nuisance by flailing his arms" and shouting. There is no claim that the defendant's loud protestations directed either at police or at Carins constituted a threat of violence and no evidence that the defendant's "flailing arms" were anything but a physical manifestation of his agitation.