[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Is this going to devolve into a "I can find a more grotesque police misbehavior story" contest? I hope not.

You are totally missing the point. This is the point...

According to AP, no criminal charges have been filed in the case, and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office says the deputies “acted appropriately.”

Why aren't these bastards getting charged?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

The reason is clear: no sane judge or nonracist jury would ever convict the professor for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Remember folks, this is America. On your own property you can say whatever you want to whomever you want. As long as you don't threaten bodily harm or hurt anyone, whatever comes out of your mouth is A-OK.

Disorderly conduct is still disorderly conduct, even on your own property. Why else do you think that cops show up to arrest arguing couples for disturbing the peace, when their fight escalates to the point that their neighbors can hear everything? You can still disturb the peace when you're standing in your front yard.

Whether or not this man was disturbing the peace is something that neither you nor I can make a judgment call on - however, the possibility of him being arrested on his property for disorderly conduct is certainly valid, The charges were dropped in a PR move because he's made such a huge brouhaha about the whole thing.

If there is a cop on your property, there is no ongoing crime and you don't want him there you have every right in the world to order him off. If he doesn't leave immediately...

Which, from the articles I've read, the cops did. The professor was the one who felt the need to continue hurling accusations of racism at the officers, even as they left his property.

I still would like to see Sgt Crowley relieved of his badge and gun. Wal-Mart security seems like a good place for him to "protect" the public.

You want to see a cop fired for investigating a suspected break-in?! What the hell?

Let's see what happened:

-Neighbor witnesses an unfamiliar individual trying to force their way into the front door of a home.
-Neighbor calls police, suspecting a break-in/burglary.
-Police arrive and question the individuals inside and outside the house, in order to ensure that they belonged there.
-Individual inside house accuses officers of racism for requesting to see identification and proof-of-residency, in order to make certain he hasn't broken into the house.
-Upon showing identification and proper proof, individual demands officers leave, while continuing to accuse them of racism.
-Because of the ruckus and commotion the individual is making in his effort to make the entire neighborhood aware of his Black Sense Of Entitlement, officers arrest him for disturbing the peace (disorderly conduct).

Where did the officers go wrong here? The man was yelling at them in his front yard, making completely unfounded accusations and assumptions. It's entirely possible that there was a crowd collecting on the sidewalk in front of his property - we don't know, since we weren't there, and all we know is what the press is telling us about the incident. I see no concrete evidence that the officers shouldn't have arrested him for disorderly conduct. I see a stupid black man who has chosen to operate under the assumption that all white people are out to get him, and he allowed his anti-white racism to get in the way of his ability to STFU and not create a big public scene.

You know what's really pathetic? Good old Obama has bought into the racist bullshit lock, stock, and barrel, according to the WSJ:

Originally Posted by wsjonline.com

Mr. Obama also called for financial regulatory reform and said the arrest of a black Harvard professor trying to get into his own house showed that racial bias "still haunts us" as a nation.

That's some quality spin right there - "the arrest of a black man trying to get into his own home". Of course, the man that people witnessed trying to get in was unfamiliar, and he appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be breaking in. God FSCKING forbid that your neighbor call the police when they think your freaking house is getting broken into. No no, it must be racism that caused the cops to come. I bet that they took the 911 dispatch, and said "hey, this resident is black! Let's go arrest him for no reason!".

...Riiiiight.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You are totally missing the point. This is the point...

Why aren't these bastards getting charged?

This is exactly what I was getting at. If we can see that there's a pattern of behavior where DAs are failing to press charges, and Internal Affairs are clearing officers in situations where they CLEARLY are in the wrong, then we can actually do something-like pass our suspicions on to AGs and others.

For what it's worth, here in San Antonio two officers were fired Tuesday for misconduct. One has been accused of "using his authority as an officer" to force a prostitute to have sex with him-in his police car, while he was (mostly) in uniform. The other is accused of indecent exposure in front of a number of females at a local university. They're both "indefinitely suspended," which here is tantamount to firing, and which the union is apparently just fine with. "The System" CAN work, and when it doesn't the SYSTEM needs fixing. Citizens are the troubleshooters in such situations-we point out the problem and make enough of a fuss that whoever is in the way of fixing things is pushed aside.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Disorderly conduct is still disorderly conduct, even on your own property. Why else do you think that cops show up to arrest arguing couples for disturbing the peace, when their fight escalates to the point that their neighbors can hear everything? You can still disturb the peace when you're standing in your front yard.

Whether or not this man was disturbing the peace is something that neither you nor I can make a judgment call on - however, the possibility of him being arrested on his property for disorderly conduct is certainly valid, The charges were dropped in a PR move because he's made such a huge brouhaha about the whole thing.

While the professor seems to have been extremely agitated about the situation, it really looks like the officer took his statements personally and thus chose to call the prof's "this is my home and I don't like the implication that I was breaking in just because I'm black" argument "disorderly conduct."

Officers have a lot of latitude in what they call disorderly, but with latitude you have to apply a LOT of judgment. I have yet to see anything about whether Professor Gates' neighborhood is "mixed" or if instead he's the only African American on the block. That could make a big difference in his outlook on having police officers come to investigate his having to shoulder a jammed front door. There's also nothing that I've seen about any previous incidents-has Professor Gates had problems with his neighbors or local officers in the past? It does not appear that he's just moved into that neighborhood, so why were neighbors and an officer so quick to assume that he was breaking in?

[Oisín]

It does not appear that he's just moved into that neighborhood, so why were neighbors and an officer so quick to assume that he was breaking in?

Read more closely: the professor was already inside the house. The person who was standing outside, leaning and pushing against the front door in an attempt to open it, was some kind of student assistant to the professor, i.e., someone who would not (likely) be well-known to the neighbours. This was the person the neighbours responded to.

When the police arrived, the door had already been managed open (as I read it), so the police officer could not tell who was the individual spotted by the neighbours.

While the professor seems to have been extremely agitated about the situation, it really looks like the officer took his statements personally and thus chose to call the prof's "this is my home and I don't like the implication that I was breaking in just because I'm black" argument "disorderly conduct."

As always with these things, we weren’t there, so we can’t tell. If Prof. Gates was merely complaining that his being black was an apparent indication that he was a burglar, then yes, the officer in question would have had to take it very personally to interpret that as disorderly conduct and arrest him for it.

If the professor was, on the other hand, doing what the article implies (without specifically stating it) that he was doing—namely, loudly and perhaps even physically, hurling abuse at the officer and accusing him of outright racism—then I can easily see how the officer could be perfectly justified in arresting him for disorderly conduct.

As usual, it boils down to the fact that we weren’t there, so we can’t accurately judge or discuss the details of the situation.

[andi*pandi]

The other person was the cab driver that had brought the Prof home from the airport.

There were lots of witnesses judging by the police report, so it will be interesting if some of them come forward and verify the insults being hurled.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

As usual, it boils down to the fact that we weren’t there, so we can’t accurately judge or discuss the details of the situation.

This.

[Laminar]

LOL BUT AS A PERUSER OF THE INTERNET IT IS MY RIGHT TO SPECULATE LOL allcaps

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Read more closely: the professor was already inside the house. The person who was standing outside, leaning and pushing against the front door in an attempt to open it, was some kind of student assistant to the professor, i.e., someone who would not (likely) be well-known to the neighbours. This was the person the neighbours responded to.

When the police arrived, the door had already been managed open (as I read it), so the police officer could not tell who was the individual spotted by the neighbours.

I had missed that part-but that part makes it a different situation to some extent.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

As usual, it boils down to the fact that we weren’t there, so we can’t accurately judge or discuss the details of the situation.

Which does not stop the majority of Intarweb Pundits® from making firm and permanent assessments which cannot ever be changed by newly discovered facts. It's sort of part of the sport, you know?

[lexapro]

Can it get any weirder?

Senior officers then called the head of PCS, Martin Harries, and ordered him to remove the clamp immediately.

Mr Harries, however, refused and told the police they would have to stump up £200 to get the clamp taken off.

LiveLeak.com - Uniformed police officer filmed using bolt cutters in bid to remove parking clamp

[Laminar]

How is that relevant?

[shifuimam]

Maybe because an unmarked police car was parked illegally, which means that all police officers everywhere never obey traffic and parking laws?

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Maybe because an unmarked police car was parked illegally, which means that all police officers everywhere never obey traffic and parking laws?

No, I am just pointing out that it's a very odd story. Even when the cops called the parking people and ordered them to remove the boot they refused without payment. That's plain odd.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

No, I am just pointing out that it's a very odd story. Even when the cops called the parking people and ordered them to remove the boot they refused without payment. That's plain odd.

If I called you up and claimed to be a police officer, would YOU believe me? I sure wouldn't. I can't blame anyone for being suspicious that some random caller is lying when they claim to be a cop.

I'm surprised the parking folks didn't charge the police extra for the damage they did with the bolt cutters.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

No, I am just pointing out that it's a very odd story. Even when the cops called the parking people and ordered them to remove the boot they refused without payment. That's plain odd.

Oh, I guess I didn't realize this was the "Post your odd stories" thread. In that case, http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat...e-smokes_N.htm.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

No, I am just pointing out that it's a very odd story. Even when the cops called the parking people and ordered them to remove the boot they refused without payment. That's plain odd.

Odd in your eyes because you expect that corrupt policemen have great influence everywhere ?

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Odd in your eyes because you expect that corrupt policemen have great influence everywhere ?

-t

I think one major point many of us are trying to make is that "policeman" does not even usually require the modifier "corrupt." The fact that police corruption, misconduct, and even mistakes are newsworthy indicates their rarity. Note that in yesterday's news a couple of politicians in New Jersey were caught in a corruption case. Not all politicians are corrupt either-though part of the job is to "spin" what they say to their political end and that makes it kind of vague where the line is drawn. Many politicians are lawyers, and not all lawyers are corrupt. Most, in fact, qualify for the label "attorney," and work hard to uphold their profession's standards.

So while it was inappropriate for the officer to park the unmarked car illegally, it does seem to many that parking enforcement and police operations should at least cooperate. In some places they do. In others...not so much.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think one major point many of us are trying to make is that "policeman" does not even usually require the modifier "corrupt." The fact that police corruption, misconduct, and even mistakes are newsworthy indicates their rarity.

Not really. News outlets report on all sorts of common things — politicians campaigning, holidays, children at the beach, Apple beating expectations etc. Notability is more a function of interest and relevance than rarity.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If I called you up and claimed to be a police officer, would YOU believe me? I sure wouldn't. I can't blame anyone for being suspicious that some random caller is lying when they claim to be a cop.

I'm surprised the parking folks didn't charge the police extra for the damage they did with the bolt cutters.

Glenn, later in the article it says that the parking service still demanded money even after they showed up to the police department where the vehicle had been towed.

So, it's clearly not an issue of not believing if someone is a cop.

[Snow-i]

Many parking laws are the way they are today BECAUSE cops, ambulances, fire trucks, etc etc can have faster and closer access to places of interest. If a cop was called out to investigate even a minor crime, they shouldn't have to drive around for 5 minutes looking for a spot.

That parking company has a lot of balls, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up paying for it in the end. I'm sure that as parking enforcement they get into situations that require police intervention on a regular basis.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

Glenn, later in the article it says that the parking service still demanded money even after they showed up to the police department where the vehicle had been towed.

So, it's clearly not an issue of not believing if someone is a cop.

No, but I still wouldn't go by some anonymous voice on the phone in any case. In this particular situation, it's obvious that parking and police are two very separate organizations, and the parking folks were enforcing their rules, cops or not.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not really. News outlets report on all sorts of common things — politicians campaigning, holidays, children at the beach, Apple beating expectations etc. Notability is more a function of interest and relevance than rarity.

Lots of filler stuff gets reported. That a national candidate is out kissing babies is not "newsworthy," just stuff to fill airtime. "Newsworthy" is something that actually is out of the ordinary and important-like an actual crooked politician getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Many parking laws are the way they are today BECAUSE cops, ambulances, fire trucks, etc etc can have faster and closer access to places of interest. If a cop was called out to investigate even a minor crime, they shouldn't have to drive around for 5 minutes looking for a spot.

That parking company has a lot of balls, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up paying for it in the end. I'm sure that as parking enforcement they get into situations that require police intervention on a regular basis.

I shouldn't have to spend five minutes driving around looking for a spot either, but I do.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I shouldn't have to spend five minutes driving around looking for a spot either, but I do.

You're kidding, right? I'm in disbelief that you even said that.

[lexapro]

And another wonderful story about cops tazing a 10 year old.

LiveLeak.com - Police Use Taser on 10-Year-Old Boy at Daycare

[Laminar]

I'd rather tase a 12-year-old than bump a thread this old.