Who Blew It? President Obama, Professor Gates or Sgt. Crowley

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't look it up because it didn't matter to me or to my argument. I'm talking about absolute right and wrong, and not the law.

Brandon, you are not the arbiter of absolute right and wrong in this world. And I'm glad that you aren't. (Nothing personal -- I'm glad that no single person is.)

So, anyone who argues ethics on this message board is setting himself up as the arbiter of ethics in the world? Only the law may be discussed here? That strikes me as a very anti-democratic sentiment.

Of course not; but when we are discussing justification for police actions, the Law is the appropriate topic to discuss, not our opinions of what the law SHOULD be.

Cycloptichorn

These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.

Quote:

These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.

'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.

'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

We've staked out our territory pretty clearly on this, and it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement. We should probably leave it at that. I could go on forever, and so could you, but to what end?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.

'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

We've staked out our territory pretty clearly on this, and it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement. We should probably leave it at that. I could go on forever, and so could you, but to what end?

Fortunately, the Law lies safely on my side of the argument; it is an arbiter between our different opinions. If you can't point to actions Gates took which violate the laws in question, then I don't think you have much of an argument that he should have been arrested.

Cycloptichorn

Tumultuous - marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.

Which of his actions rose to this level of behavior?

None of them. I also believe that the 'disorderly conduct' law applies to public disturbances, and Gates was not in public in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

The woman who made the 911 call that led to Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates' controversial arrest wasn't present at the so-called beer summit. But she got a shot of kindness and a taste of gratitude from Gates himself.Lucia Whalen received a bouquet of flowers at her office from Gates, according to Whalen's attorney, Wendy Murphy."She described them as amazing, and appreciated them very much," Murphy said of the bouquet.The attorney described the flowers as being a beautiful assortment of what she believed were different colored roses.There was a note included from Gates, the details of which Murphy would not divulge. She said the note characterized Gates's "expression of gratitude" for Whalen's action.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tumultuous - marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.

Which of his actions rose to this level of behavior?

None of them. I also believe that the 'disorderly conduct' law applies to public disturbances, and Gates was not in public in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

If the courts can get a right to abortion out of the Constitution, which never once mentions abortion, birth, or reproduction, I think that I can assert that Gates behavior, at least as reported in some accounts, could be covered by the word "tumultuous."