From the "Black People Arrest Themselves" files

[grumbler]

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.

For you, the "fact" that he "learned nothing new" seems to carry weight.  For me, his learning something new is irrelevant.  I do not say that he learned something new, I merely point out that we have no evidence for your assertions of the opposite.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

Nope.  I am merely pointing out a plauable explanation for an event you seem to have imbued with some significance as evidence of nefarious designs.  I do not have to prove that my alternate explanation is true, I merely have to offer it as plausible.  For you to dismiss it requires evidence. 

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.

Stricken as non-responsive.  If the police believe that their policy is lawful and was being followed, you have to offer some evidence to the contrary.  You have failed to do so, but claimed that you have (when your "proof" was mere assertion).

In order for your case against Crowley to stand, you have to show that he was acting unlawfully.  You have failed to do this, because all of your assertions to that effect are either completely unsupported or else supotrted by mis-statements of facts (like that he "called for backup").

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

Another mis-statement of fact.  Neither Crowley nor Gates assert that Gates "had to be drawn out of the house."  Both assert that gates came willingly, in order to publically berate Crowley.

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.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  The police officers on the scene have been unanimous insofar as we know, that this was a lawful arrest.  Your mere assertion that it wasn't carries no weight.

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.

[/quote]In one of the cited cases, LePore, the court noted that

A person is "disorderly" under G. L. c. 272, s. 53, "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; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;

The Whiting case referenced at http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html is apparently the wrong one.

If Crowley believed that Gates had followed him from the house to "whip up the crowd" over his treatment, Crowley could reasonably assume that Gates had met the standard of C v Lepore 9and the law0 in both prongs.  And that is the only standard he had to meet;  reasonableness. 

I think that, in his shoes and absent any further evidence as to what the policies of the CP were in cases like this, i would certainly not have arrested.  But my opinions, like yours, are not nearly as well-informed as those closer to the case, and given that yours is an extraordinary assertion (that Gates acted nefariously and is being protected by his fellow-officers and the CPD hierarchy) you need better evidence than your own (quite narrow) interpretation of the law.

[grumbler]

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.

If an officer is acting without malice and his interpretation of the law was reasonable, how could an arrest be "unlawful?"  Improper, perhaps, but "unlawful?"

I would agree that Crowley's actions here were in excess of what I would do in his shoes based only on what I currently know, but if JR is correct and Crowley had decided to 'escalate' things to an arrest before even knowing who was in the house, he couldn't be acting without malice and in good faith, I shouldn't think.

[grumbler]

None of that disagrees with what I said.

I am not sure what your point is, then. 

[PDH]

I think we can all agree that none of this would have happened if this country was ready to elect a black man.

[citizen k]

I think we can all agree that none of this would have happened if this country was ready to elect a black man.

We jumped the gun? 

[The Minsky Moment]

In one of the cited cases, LePore, the court noted that

A person is "disorderly" under G. L. c. 272, s. 53, "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; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;

You have to read the case in its entirety.  LePore begins with that recitation of the statutory language but then goes on to specifically narrow its application to exclude cases where the only act alleged is a speech act.  And in Lopiano - the case I actually cited - the suspect was in fact shouting at a police officer in a public place near at least one member of the public.  It is the same fact pattern.

Your dog is snoozing on this one in the mid-day sun.

[Jaron]

I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..

I agree with grumbler 100%.

[Ed Anger]

I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..

I agree with grumbler 100%.

You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.

[Jaron]

I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..

I agree with grumbler 100%.

You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.

No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.

Mexico..

Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..

Have you seen Mexico lately?

[Ed Anger]

I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..

I agree with grumbler 100%.

You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.

No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.

Mexico..

Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..

Have you seen Mexico lately?

I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.

[garbon]

I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.

I've been to Mexico. Am I not alive?

[Jaron]

I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..

I agree with grumbler 100%.

You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.

No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.

Mexico..

Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..

Have you seen Mexico lately?

I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.

It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you.

[Ed Anger]

It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you.

Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.

[garbon]

I forgot, James Crowley was much more attractive than I was expecting.

[Jaron]

It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you.

Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.

Someone has to do the manly work while you and your fellow homosexuals lick each others Buckeyes.