Obama '08?

That comes from old age; I see both of them as neausance. Rarely, if ever, posts anything worth the cyberspace.

I probably owe mm an apology, so I'll say I'm sorry now - and try to be more observant between the two of them.

so it then seems obvious to you that once the police knew that the report of a break in was bogus, they should have apologized for the inconvenience and left.

Asking for ID is a reasonable request, but legally would be an unreasonable demand. Gates would have been well within his rights to say “**** you... Get the **** off my property, and don’t come back without a warrant.”

YOu said it! You said the police assumed Mr Gates was guilty of a crime. In this country, you are not guilty until proven guilty in a court of law or the offender had some sign of being dangerous to himself or others. No such thing was evident.

cicerone imposter wrote:

YOu said it! You said the police assumed Mr Gates was guilty of a crime. In this country, you are not guilty until proven guilty in a court of law or the offender had some sign of being dangerous to himself or others. No such thing was evident.

So you have to be proven guilty of a crime before you are arrested?

In what country do you reside?

911, police tapes key in Gates case
Officials mull release of recorded evidence
By Richard Weir, Laurel J. Sweet and Benjamin Bell
Friday, July 24, 2009 - Updated 34m ago


Mounting pressure to get to the bottom of the controversial arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. is centering on recorded police tapes that may offer a dose of reality amid all the media and political noise.

Cambridge police brass and lawyers are weighing making the tapes public, which could include the 911 call reporting a break-in at Gates’ home and radio transmissions by the cop who busted him July 16 for disorderly conduct.

“It’s powerful evidence because the (people involved) have not had a chance to reflect and you are getting their state of mind captured on tape,” said former prosecutor and New York City police officer Eugene O’Donnell, who is now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas said last night he has asked City Solicitor Donald Drisdell to review the 911 tape, which has the potential to either bolster or impugn Gates’ stance that he is a blameless victim of racial profiling at his own home.

Further, Sgt. James Crowley noted in his report that he radioed police headquarters to let them know he was with the person who appeared to be the home’s lawful resident, but who was “very uncooperative.”

Upon receiving Gates’ Harvard ID, Crowley wrote he radioed in to request “the presence of the Harvard University Police.”

In a radio interview yesterday morning with WEEI’s John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, Crowley, a 42-year-old father of three, said he hasn’t heard the tapes.

“One of my first transmissions was to slow the units down and I’m in the residence with somebody I believe resides here, but he’s being very uncooperative. So, that’s in real time,” Crowley told the sports-talk hosts.

“I’m not really sure how much you could hear from Professor Gates, you know, in the background. I, I don’t know. I haven’t heard the tapes.”

Haas did not share with reporters what can be heard on the tapes, but commented, “I don’t believe Sgt. Crowley acted with any racial motivation at all.”

Gates, 58, a world-renowned scholar and documentary filmmaker on black history, allegedly ranted to police at his Ware Street home, “This is what happens to black men in America!” and “You don’t know who you’re messing with!” in addition to verbally dragging Crowley’s mother into the fray.

“More often than not,” O’Donnell said, “as the facts come out, they are more favorable to the cop. It’s crucial in the sense that it provides independent evidence. There is no question it provides corroboration. He called the tapes potentially “crucial” to Crowley’s ability to defend himself against charges of racism.

Attorney Stuart London, who has defended countless cops in high-profile cases, including one of the NYPD officers charged in the 1998 beating and plunger torture of Abner Louima in 1998, said, “If (the officer is dealing) with someone who is not being cooperative and is unruly, (the tape) gives you more insight into the state of mind of the officer. That’s the most important part.”

“I don’t believe this officer did anything wrong, and given what we know, I don’t think he would be afraid to share the tapes at all, either,” said Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. “It’s public record. From dispatch to conclusion, it’s all on tape.”

Why so much nonsense? Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Bill of Rights (see the Fourth Amendment) can see the cop was out of line. It was certainly reasonable for the cop to ask for his name and whether or not he lived there. Asking for ID is a reasonable request, but legally would be an unreasonable demand. Gates would have been well within his rights to say “**** you... Get the **** off my property, and don’t come back without a warrant.” No probable cause = No right to be there. Hell, even a “Terry Stop” requires that a specific reasonable suspicion be enhanced to probable cause in short order or it must be terminated… and probable cause must be established BEFORE an arrest (or even an intrusive search) can be made. This asshole made his arrest long after the proof eliminated even a possible cause!

Gates may well have been every bit as rude as the police officers wrote in their reports. This doesn’t matter in the least because he most certainly has a right to be rude in his own home, and that it was his home had been well established. Upon furnishing the ID, the cop reports that rather than just leaving, he called more cops out. Huh? For what? Then he invites the irate man to continue yelling, but only if he continues outside… and shortly thereafter arrests him for yelling outside? If every word of that report is true (bridge for sale!), Gates remains guilty of breaking no laws and the cop remains guilty of overstaying his unwelcome, false arrest, and abuse of power.

The police officer in question had no legitimate reason to remain, let alone call additional cops. He himself created the crowd by doing so and then by inviting Gates outside.

Arresting Gates for exercising his First Amendment rights while his Fourth Amendment rights were being trampled is beyond absurd. It’s been almost half a century since the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th to offer 4th amendment protection in every state… which in this case is irrelevant because this type of illegal seizure has been illegal in Massachusetts for roughly two and a half centuries.

There can no doubt that Mr. Gates’ Rights were violated and little as to why.

Calling the police stupid in this case is extremely generous. In my country, the constitution provides me with freedom of speech and the right to due process which in turn protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures. That same constitution should provide those same rights for Mr. Gates, equally. Maybe someday, but not today.


Police Report's here if anyone missed them."