Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 111
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Ashman, you have got to be joking.

    Nothing Carl has stated shows he claims Crowley was correct. In fact, he stated it could go either way. What he has said is Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, are basic and prudent police actions. I do not see Carl protecting anybody or anything.

    ashman:

    This, quite simply, is a load of bs. It is clear that you are going to outright be deceptive to protect Crowley. Or, you haven't read any of the relevant paperwork. Or something. And I think it's funny that you seem to think that no one else here but you has the mental firepower to handle the awesome job of supreme intelligence that goes with being a police officer. It isn't mentally taxing, nor does it require deep thought.
    can you show where he is "protecting" Crowley? It is obvious that you have a desire simply to continue an argument, regardless of you being wrong.

    ashman:

    They also taught me that not every black person opening the door to a house is a suspect. Pity you and Crowley didn't learn this lesson. Or, how to ask questions. I can imagine your cases require almost no time to resolve. Mine happened to take a little longer because I did actual police work. You know, collecting information, thinking a little about it. That kind of stuff
    .

    but since somebody that lives in the area believed the situation to be suspicious, the officer is going to enter the investigation with that fact as his basis for being there. Additionally, Crowley even states he believed Gates was the resident. He merely sought proof, which Gates initially refused (by Crowleys account).

    Yeah, taking the 30 seconds to ask the neighbor who lives there doesn't seem to cross your mind. Great police work there: have call, must respond to call, must ignore all I see and ask no question. Me see man, me approach. This is really not showing your police training in a positive light.
    You have to remember that the neighbor initiated the call. If the neighbor recognized it as Gates, we would not be discussing this.

    I suppose, in your opinion, Crowley should have walked around and question anybody in any house within a 1 block radius to see if maybe the guy that lived there was black or not, was on vacation, or not, and was seen sometime in the last week in this area.

    You say that like it's something noble, and that, again, you've handwaved away people who are cops and disagree with you. Or who have been cops and disagree with you. That's lovely. You've set up the condition, in typical Bush style, of for us or against us such that all people who disagree with you are on the other side of the thin blue line, and all people who agree with you (even when you are outright lying) are inside of it. That's cheap.
    where was that that Carl was lying? Ashman,I believe it is you that has the closed mind. You are the one that vilifies all who dare to disagree with you. You actually are the one that is arguing with no support and no facts yet you continue to insist Crowley is wrong.

    ashman:

    Awesome. This is a hard topic where we'd have to deal with the realities of law enforcement in the U.S. so you run off. I suppose that's better, on the other hand, than having you sit around and continually tell lies, make up evidence, ignore what is there and then use a personal testimony of some dubiously true story as your evidence.
    You have some serious problems ashman. Like before, with me, you claim to be holier than all and right in everything you say. Well, in this case, you are wrong. Show me a lie by Carl.

    Additionally, your position is the one making hard and fast conclusions using only the evidence you choose to see. I am not a cop. Never been a cop. Generally do not like cops but even I can see where Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, were simply prudent when faced with a suspect. As to the arrest; why do argue nobody had seen the statute? Look it up if you have a problem with connecting the statute with the actions. I have and the statute does support Crowleys actions if you do not have the Mass Supreme Court case that defined tumultuous a few years ago. As well, there is other case law that does tend to support Crowleys application of the law in cases previous to the Mass SC case.


    and everybody needs to quit arguing "the elderly man of small stature that required a cane to walk"

    Gates is not too small or too elderly to point and shoot a gun.

    and to the need of a cane;


    where was it when Gates followed Crowley outside? When arrested, all of a sudden he states he needs his cane to walk. The police, be respectful, went back into the house and retrieved it for Gates.

    On top of that, Gates is crowing about his inability to raise his voice yet, have you heard of anybody disputing Crowleys claims of Gates actions the precipitated the arrest? The only statement I heard concerning such was in support of Crowley, but that was from a fellow officer so he must have been lying, right Ashman?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Ashman, you have got to be joking.

    Nothing Carl has stated shows he claims Crowley was correct. In fact, he stated it could go either way. What he has said is Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, are basic and prudent police actions. I do not see Carl protecting anybody or anything.
    Yes, he said it could go either way, except, you know, if you read his actual words where he says a case can "easily" be made that it was reasonable and lawful. And that Gates' conduct arguably was unlawful, even if it didn't meet any of the elements of any law. And by arguable, of course, he has to either mean not arguable since there is no argument among anyone who's read the law and studied the case, or he's just piling on more to bolster an otherwise vacuous claim.


    can you show where he is "protecting" Crowley? It is obvious that you have a desire simply to continue an argument, regardless of you being wrong.
    Yes to the first part, "your being wrong" to correct the last part, and that I'm not wrong as to also correct the last part. The desire isn't simply to have an argument. Though sometimes I will do such, this isn't exactly a nothing issue. Granted, no one was killed or anything but it is a symptom of a greater problem.
    but since somebody that lives in the area believed the situation to be suspicious, the officer is going to enter the investigation with that fact as his basis for being there.
    Right. I'm with you so far. Presumably, when you use the word "investigation", you do mean in its full definition? Or is investigation limited somehow? Please elaborate inasmuch as the scope of the term will largely decide whether Crowley did his job well, in your estimation, or not.
    Additionally, Crowley even states he believed Gates was the resident. He merely sought proof, which Gates initially refused (by Crowleys account).
    Again, such things might be relevant in some situations, but "belief" isn't a proof of anything. It isn't evidence. He knew outright hands down with no questions that Gates lived there. At that point, since nothing else was outstanding, he should have left his card and continued his shift. He chose otherwise.
    You have to remember that the neighbor initiated the call. If the neighbor recognized it as Gates, we would not be discussing this.
    Why is it that you presume I don't remember this? Was it all of my references to talking to the RP which confused you? I can understand that, since I didn't delineate what RP meant. It's the reporting party (the neighbor in the case). But your complete ignorance of my "remember[ing]" of such a person indicates you didn't actually read what I wrote since I several times mentioned the neighbor by title ("neighbor") even though I sometimes used "RP". Remember, JK, ignorance isn't an argument.

    I suppose, in your opinion, Crowley should have walked around and question anybody in any house within a 1 block radius to see if maybe the guy that lived there was black or not, was on vacation, or not, and was seen sometime in the last week in this area.
    Yes, for that matter, he should have interviewed the entire state. Of course, your ridiculousness is quite plain here. Going from "ask the RP" to "interview the whole block" is completely dimwitted. For one, he was already talking to the neighbor (RP); how much effort would asking "Who lives there?" require? It's three words, which took me about all of 2 seconds to type out, with punctuation. I can't imagine that it would have taken any longer to ask it orally. Your suggestion, on the other hand, is completely stupid: it could potentially take an hour to interview an entire block.

    where was that that Carl was lying? Ashman,I believe it is you that has the closed mind. You are the one that vilifies all who dare to disagree with you. You actually are the one that is arguing with no support and no facts yet you continue to insist Crowley is wrong.
    I don't know, how about if you look at the text right about where I said "this is a lie" and the like. It might give you a clue as to what to research.
    I have no support? Ok, you could be right.

    Normally, when the police make a justified arrest, charges follow. This is because their actions are based on the elements of the offense for which they effect said arrest. Please explain to me why the prosecutor has said that there isn't a set circumstances under which this conduct could be a violation of the law, or could be won in court? If I'm wrong, then surely the answer can be found there.

    If his decision were proper, why is it that other police officers say it wasn't? Why do some of them say that they see no reason for it?

    Why is there no support in the statutes which gives this arrest an air of legality?

    If any of those are wrong, and the evidence is contrary to my claim, please show me so that I may correct my errant thinking.

    You have some serious problems ashman. Like before, with me, you claim to be holier than all and right in everything you say. Well, in this case, you are wrong. Show me a lie by Carl.
    You could right that I have serious problems. But what problems I might have are surely beyond you so you needn't concern yourself with them. Again, reread what I wrote and pay particular attention to the text it was in response to. I separate out the points sufficiently to make the reply relevant to the cited text.
    Additionally, your position is the one making hard and fast conclusions using only the evidence you choose to see.
    What evidence am I choosing not to see? And what evidence is Crowley (and Carl and you) choosing not to see?
    I am not a cop. Never been a cop. Generally do not like cops but even I can see where Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, were simply prudent when faced with a suspect. As to the arrest; why do argue nobody had seen the statute?
    I didn't argue no one has seen it. Please don't twist my words. I said that no one who has seen the statute and reviewed the case who is knowledgeable in the law has agreed that Gates broke the law. Most importantly of these people, curiously enough, is the prosecutor who outright rejects the charge. You see, I used the conjunction "and" between two clauses which are thus, logically and grammatically, interlinked such that the third assertion in the sentence is dependent upon both conditions joined by "and" are true. You can't separate it and make it a disjunction as this completely changes the entire assertion from what I said to what you want to make it seem like I said.
    Look it up if you have a problem with connecting the statute with the actions.
    I have.
    I have and the statute does support Crowleys actions if you do not have the Mass Supreme Court case that defined tumultuous a few years ago.
    Curious that the prosecutor in that jurisdiction disagrees with you. My evidence is shaky, but seemingly refusing to accept charges based on a lack of his conduct even appearing to meet the elements seems to cut against your argument.

    and everybody needs to quit arguing "the elderly man of small stature that required a cane to walk"
    I'm going to take this as a general response since I've made no such claim.
    Gates is not too small or too elderly to point and shoot a gun.
    Which he had on his person as the officer noted while watching him before approaching the situation, right?

    where was it when Gates followed Crowley outside?
    Right after the officer invited him to follow him outside, thus setting a situation to force an unjustified arrest.
    When arrested, all of a sudden he states he needs his cane to walk. The police, be respectful, went back into the house and retrieved it for Gates.
    How kind of them to get his cane after falsely arresting him for a charge that could never stick.
    On top of that, Gates is crowing about his inability to raise his voice yet, have you heard of anybody disputing Crowleys claims of Gates actions the precipitated the arrest? The only statement I heard concerning such was in support of Crowley, but that was from a fellow officer so he must have been lying, right Ashman?
    I understand that none of the other officers heard the alleged your momma comment. Perhaps he wasn't loud enough for them to hear him say it. Or maybe Crowley made that up too. Either way, it's necessarily the case that one of the assertions is false since one must cut against the other. He was either so loud as to be disturbing the peace, or he wasn't. If he said it and only Crowley heard him, then it's not that loud. If it isn't that loud, he wasn't disturbing the peace.

    If he was disturbing the peace and people didn't hear what he's supposed to have said, then someone's making something up.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    "Tumultuous" is not a commonly used word. If Crowley chose it because he knew it had once been used in a court decision, that seems manipulative - like his exaggeration of the statements made in the 911 call. If he chose it by coincidence, there's no basis for believing he was using it as a term of art.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Quote Quoting aaron
    View Post
    "Tumultuous" is not a commonly used word. If Crowley chose it because he knew it had once been used in a court decision, that seems manipulative - like his exaggeration of the statements made in the 911 call. If he chose it by coincidence, there's no basis for believing he was using it as a term of art.
    here is Officer Figueroa's report. Unless there was collusion, Gates was yelling, even when outside of the residence. http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-conten...9005127-p3.jpg


    Tumultuous is used within the statute along with the terms he ascribed to the actions of the public exposed to Gates utterances.

    As I have stated in other discussions, the use of the terms shows one of 2 things to me:

    1. he did intentionally use those terms specifically so the statute would seem applicable

    2. he used those terms intentionally so as to connect the statute, as he understood it, to what was happening rather than use synonyms, which would be open to interpretation. I can imagine where an officer described a situation in his own words, somewhere in his duties, that others interpreted to mean something other than what the officer intended.

    which is it? I don't know. We will most likely never know since this will not be going to court.

    as to the exagerrations? Where? The inclusion of the "2 black males"?

    first, it is not claimed to have come from the 911 call so that needs to be laid to rest. Crowley never claimed it was. In his report, he states the caller [Whalen] spoke with him for a short time upon his arrival at the scene. She has since disputed she spoke to the officer at all. Who is being honest? Obviously Whalen is an uninvolved party so many will argue Crowley has more reason to lie. It could be but without some proof one way or the other, again, who has the true answer?

    Could it have been Crowleys error? Something such as the info that there were 2 males, Crowley arrives on site and at least one of the men is obviously a black male. Did Crowley show his lack of proper repporting of the details by possibly mistakenly presuming there were 2 black males after being faced with the 1 male that was left who was black?

    Now, to the point that Crowley spoke with Whalen onsite. A point she disputes. Crowley did put in his report that a white woman with a wireless phone spoke with him at the scene and identified herself as the 911 caller. Now, when was the report written? Was it such a time later that Crowley would have been able to ascertain that Whalen was a white woman and had used a wireless phone to call 911? Additionally, Crowley states that Whalen was on the walk in front of the house when he emerged from the residence. Again, how would he know who she was unless she was identified to Crowley at some point. To allege Crowley had had the forethought to include Whalen in his report as he has seems to be a bit of a stretch.

    So, what is Whalens account of Gates actions upon emergence from the house? I don't believe she has made any statement of her observations. It is my suspicion that she has not simply because she is trying to avoid actually answering any questions about the situation. She has claimed, several times, that she is "hurt" by the racist label she has received as a result of the situation. I have not seen any statement putting any blame on her. None that made any statement that she was being racist because of her actions. I suspect she is not being completely forthcoming with her rendition of the situation. I think she might be, for whatever reason, making herself more important in this issue than anybody else has seen the need to.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Again, plucking a word out of a court decision or statute doesn't make the conduct described "tumultuous". It just means the officer cherry-picked a word. I've seen police reports for "fleeing and eluding" where the officer describes the defendant as having eluded him - er... obviously not. But enough tilting at windmills: Whatever the reason he picked the word, the fact that the court cases make excruciatingly clear that this was not a makable case renders his use of that particular term unimpressive.

    If you can find any reference by the caller to "2 black males", I'll buy you a cookie. If you can find any statement of confidence as to the race of even one suspect, I'll buy you another cookie. If you can find any reference to backpacks... another cookie. It didn't come from the caller - it came from Crowley. Sorry: that means he's either far too sloppy with the facts, or was making stuff up. If you expect me to believe that he had a conversation with her that only he saw and only he remembers, in which the caller's statement suddenly became much more specific and entirely contradictory of what she said during her 911 call... I'm just not that credulous.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    here is Officer Figueroa's report. Unless there was collusion, Gates was yelling, even when outside of the residence. http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-conten...9005127-p3.jpg
    Ok, I can get behind that. Because, we all know that police officers, unlike the rest of the human race, never influence each other on things. It needn't be collusion per se, but reports aren't written as things happen. Memories can be rather easily corrupted.
    Tumultuous is used within the statute along with the terms he ascribed to the actions of the public exposed to Gates utterances.

    As I have stated in other discussions, the use of the terms shows one of 2 things to me:

    1. he did intentionally use those terms specifically so the statute would seem applicable
    I don't follow this reasoning. Does using a word somehow imply that a case is somehow stronger or more legally accurate, or even more applicable to a statute? What if the word appears for other cases? Can't we use the same "logic" to suggest that it could have easily been meant to apply to, oh say, contract disagreement via arbitration? This seems, to me, a non-starter.
    2. he used those terms intentionally so as to connect the statute, as he understood it, to what was happening rather than use synonyms, which would be open to interpretation. I can imagine where an officer described a situation in his own words, somewhere in his duties, that others interpreted to mean something other than what the officer intended.
    I can see where you're going with this. I don't think it's necessarily the case, as anything can be taken out of context and changed (as you did in your post to me where you took my words, snipped out all of the words relating to my original thought, and completely reversed what my actual sentence had actually said). Using a different set of words won't prevent people who aren't honest enough to actually use the words and meaning of what one says instead of intentionally changing it for no other reason than be to deceptive, and then attack a position that was never in contention.
    which is it? I don't know. We will most likely never know since this will not be going to court.
    We don't need a court to figure out reality, do we?
    as to the exagerrations? Where? The inclusion of the "2 black males"?

    first, it is not claimed to have come from the 911 call so that needs to be laid to rest. Crowley never claimed it was. In his report, he states the caller [Whalen] spoke with him for a short time upon his arrival at the scene. She has since disputed she spoke to the officer at all. Who is being honest? Obviously Whalen is an uninvolved party so many will argue Crowley has more reason to lie. It could be but without some proof one way or the other, again, who has the true answer?
    So, now if we're going to accuse the officer of lying, we have to have a greater standard for how we view him than we how we view Gates? This makes no sense. At some point, one has to wonder if it's the rest of the world setting up Crowley, or whether he just isn't honest.
    Could it have been Crowleys error? Something such as the info that there were 2 males, Crowley arrives on site and at least one of the men is obviously a black male. Did Crowley show his lack of proper repporting of the details by possibly mistakenly presuming there were 2 black males after being faced with the 1 male that was left who was black?
    That's possible, to be sure. I know that I, for one, am uncomfortable with such substandard, unacceptably shoddy police guesswork. The guy was there. He could have simply looked at him to determine his race instead of guessing, if that's what he did.
    Now, to the point that Crowley spoke with Whalen onsite. A point she disputes. Crowley did put in his report that a white woman with a wireless phone spoke with him at the scene and identified herself as the 911 caller. Now, when was the report written? Was it such a time later that Crowley would have been able to ascertain that Whalen was a white woman and had used a wireless phone to call 911? Additionally, Crowley states that Whalen was on the walk in front of the house when he emerged from the residence. Again, how would he know who she was unless she was identified to Crowley at some point. To allege Crowley had had the forethought to include Whalen in his report as he has seems to be a bit of a stretch.
    I don't know. It sounds to me like if you include enough random details, the position is unassailable. How do we know she used a wireless phone? How do we know she was on the front walk when he arrived? We have his say-so, and he aint none too friendly with the truth as it seems.
    So, what is Whalens account of Gates actions upon emergence from the house? I don't believe she has made any statement of her observations. It is my suspicion that she has not simply because she is trying to avoid actually answering any questions about the situation. She has claimed, several times, that she is "hurt" by the racist label she has received as a result of the situation. I have not seen any statement putting any blame on her. None that made any statement that she was being racist because of her actions. I suspect she is not being completely forthcoming with her rendition of the situation. I think she might be, for whatever reason, making herself more important in this issue than anybody else has seen the need to.
    I see. So, when an officer who is shown to be loose with the truth has a person who's said nothing, your first course is to automatically distrust what the person hasn't said. Well, okay. How about if she says something, then you can evaluate that instead of just preemptively implying she's a liar?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Quoting aaron
    View Post

    If you can find any reference by the caller to "2 black males", I'll buy you a cookie. If you can find any statement of confidence as to the race of even one suspect, I'll buy you another cookie. If you can find any reference to backpacks... another cookie. It didn't come from the caller - it came from Crowley. Sorry: that means he's either far too sloppy with the facts, or was making stuff up. If you expect me to believe that he had a conversation with her that only he saw and only he remembers, in which the caller's statement suddenly became much more specific and entirely contradictory of what she said during her 911 call... I'm just not that credulous.
    like I said, no proof one way or the other but, depending on how things did happen, I believe I presented plausible support for the possibility Crowley is not lying.

    as to the conversation; if she and the officer were the only people present, where do you expect any witnesses to come from?

    as to the possibility of contradictory. First, the statements are not contradictory. She originally stated she could not determine the race. If she had subsequently seen the men, she may have been able to make that determination. Remember, the driver left in between the time of the 911 call and the arrival of the police. Whalen would most likely have seen at least one of the men and since the 911 operator was so forceful in his questioning Whalen, I would think would then specifically attempt to determine their race.

    ashman165;337977]Yes, he said it could go either way, except, you know, if you read his actual words where he says a case can "easily" be made that it was reasonable and lawful. And that Gates' conduct arguably was unlawful, even if it didn't meet any of the elements of any law.
    really? Have you read the germane statute?

    And by arguable, of course, he has to either mean not arguable since there is no argument among anyone who's read the law and studied the case, or he's just piling on more to bolster an otherwise vacuous claim.
    sorry Ashman but I see nothing wrong with Carls position.


    Yes to the first part, "your being wrong" to correct the last part, and that I'm not wrong as to also correct the last part. The desire isn't simply to have an argument. Though sometimes I will do such, this isn't exactly a nothing issue. Granted, no one was killed or anything but it is a symptom of a greater problem.
    but one we will not settle, for the world, here. Both you and Carl are regular posters. Both have provided good info for folks. When this becomes simply a matter of argument, beyond the case at hand, it does nothing to further the answers to the case and it does cause animosity and results in a less cooperative forum which results in a less beneficial forum for those seeking assistance here. If I came here and saw continual arguing between a lot of the regular members, it would tend to turn me elsewhere. It's not my forum but if it were, I would not appreciate discussions the were reduced to simple name calling.

    Right. I'm with you so far. Presumably, when you use the word "investigation", you do mean in its full definition? Or is investigation limited somehow? Please elaborate inasmuch as the scope of the term will largely decide whether Crowley did his job well, in your estimation, or not.
    this is my point about you Ashman.

    investigation: : to make a systematic examination ; especially : to conduct an official inquiry

    I didn't realize it had to meet some predetermined level of research to qualify as an actual investigation. Stop twisting words to make an argument. Take note: you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. I think that is called hypocritical.

    Again, such things might be relevant in some situations, but "belief" isn't a proof of anything. It isn't evidence. He knew outright hands down with no questions that Gates lived there. At that point, since nothing else was outstanding, he should have left his card and continued his shift. He chose otherwise
    .he needed to verfiy Gates was the resident. Simply believing is not enough.

    Why is it that you presume I don't remember this? Was it all of my references to talking to the RP which confused you? I can understand that, since I didn't delineate what RP meant. It's the reporting party (the neighbor in the case). But your complete ignorance of my "remember[ing]" of such a person indicates you didn't actually read what I wrote since I several times mentioned the neighbor by title ("neighbor") even though I sometimes used "RP". Remember, JK, ignorance isn't an argument.
    Now you are simply attempting to start an argument, again.


    Yes, for that matter, he should have interviewed the entire state.
    talk of ridiculous.

    Of course, your ridiculousness is quite plain here. Going from "ask the RP" to "interview the whole block" is completely dimwitted.
    he states he DID speak to the RP. You are the one that stated he needed to investigate further. I simply asked how far you expected him to go. and again, it seems your only intent here is to get your thrills from calling others names.

    For one, he was already talking to the neighbor (RP)
    I think you need to read about who is who in this situation. Unless Whalen recently move in, she is not a neighbor. She has an office nearby;

    how much effort would asking "Who lives there?" require?
    does it really matter? the report was that 2 males appeared to be breaking into the house. He investigated based on the fact that there may have been 2 people breaking into a house. Why would it make any difference as to who lived there?

    . Your suggestion, on the other hand, is completely stupid: it could potentially take an hour to interview an entire block.
    Here go again with your childish name calling. What a show of your brilliance (you do understand sarcasm don't you?)


    I
    don't know, how about if you look at the text right about where I said "this is a lie" and the like. It might give you a clue as to what to research.
    I have no support? Ok, you could be right.
    here is the section I saw that where you accused Carl of lying and the section of Carls you had quoted:

    Quote:
    Yes, this incident has struck a cord with most officers throughout the country - myself included. For that reason, and before I find myself at odds with many of you that I consider to be friends or, at least, fellows with similar interests in the law, I shall be unsubscribing from this thread so that I will no longer receive responses and, as a result, will no longer be replying.
    Awesome. This is a hard topic where we'd have to deal with the realities of law enforcement in the U.S. so you run off. I suppose that's better, on the other hand, than having you sit around and continually tell lies, make up evidence, ignore what is there and then use a personal testimony of some dubiously true story as your evidence.
    I do not see anything that can be construed as a lie by Carl. That is why I asked for you to provide some specific statement you believed was a lie.

    Normally, when the police make a justified arrest, charges follow.
    supposedly have had been a police officer, either you were an officer for an extremely short time, were completely blind and ignorant of real life, or just plain stupid. I see various people arrested many times each week where charges are dropped. I know, you are going to claim you were such a better officer that this never happened to you. Of course, you are closer to God than any of us and never make such errors.

    . Please explain to me why the prosecutor has said that there isn't a set circumstances under which this conduct could be a violation of the law, or could be won in court? If I'm wrong, then surely the answer can be found there.
    because the prosecutor has time to research the charges and the access to the laws and case law when he makes his decision. The officer does not have that luxury.


    If his decision were proper, why is it that other police officers say it wasn't? Why do some of them say that they see no reason for it?
    show me. The only officer I heard speak this directly stated he supported Crowleys actions 100%.

    Why is there no support in the statutes which gives this arrest an air of legality
    apparently you have not read the statute. As I have stated, if taken as presented, the claims fit the statute to a T.

    If any of those are wrong, and the evidence is contrary to my claim, please show me so that I may correct my errant thinking.
    Do your own damn research. You want to claim to be so much better than all here. You are so closed minded and judgmental and derogatory to anybody here; look it up for yourself.



    I think I'll follow Carls lead. Once Ashman gets involved, it no longer is a discussion of the facts but; defend yourself against the "used to be a cop" know-it-all jerk that is too blind to see anything but his own self perceived brilliance.




    You could right that I have serious problems. But what problems I might have are surely beyond you so you needn't concern yourself with them. Again, reread what I wrote and pay particular attention to the text it was in response to. I separate out the points sufficiently to make the reply relevant to the cited text.

    What evidence am I choosing not to see? And what evidence is Crowley (and Carl and you) choosing not to see?

    I didn't argue no one has seen it. Please don't twist my words. I said that no one who has seen the statute and reviewed the case who is knowledgeable in the law has agreed that Gates broke the law. Most importantly of these people, curiously enough, is the prosecutor who outright rejects the charge. You see, I used the conjunction "and" between two clauses which are thus, logically and grammatically, interlinked such that the third assertion in the sentence is dependent upon both conditions joined by "and" are true. You can't separate it and make it a disjunction as this completely changes the entire assertion from what I said to what you want to make it seem like I said.

    I have.

    Curious that the prosecutor in that jurisdiction disagrees with you. My evidence is shaky, but seemingly refusing to accept charges based on a lack of his conduct even appearing to meet the elements seems to cut against your argument.


    I'm going to take this as a general response since I've made no such claim.

    Which he had on his person as the officer noted while watching him before approaching the situation, right?


    Right after the officer invited him to follow him outside, thus setting a situation to force an unjustified arrest.

    How kind of them to get his cane after falsely arresting him for a charge that could never stick.

    I understand that none of the other officers heard the alleged your momma comment. Perhaps he wasn't loud enough for them to hear him say it. Or maybe Crowley made that up too. Either way, it's necessarily the case that one of the assertions is false since one must cut against the other. He was either so loud as to be disturbing the peace, or he wasn't. If he said it and only Crowley heard him, then it's not that loud. If it isn't that loud, he wasn't disturbing the peace.

    If he was disturbing the peace and people didn't hear what he's supposed to have said, then someone's making something up.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas/Tejas
    Posts
    1,879

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    What do ya'll say to this?
    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/07/2...onstitutional/
    In other words, the mere act of talking back to a cop does not constitute a crime and should not justify arrest.
    Couldn't have put it better myself!

    LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    like I said, no proof one way or the other but, depending on how things did happen, I believe I presented plausible support for the possibility Crowley is not lying.
    This type of embellishment is pretty common. Frankly, I have no use for your unconvincing speculation. If Crowley wants to explain how the errors and inconsistencies crept into his report, he knows how to find a microphone.
    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    as to the conversation; if she and the officer were the only people present, where do you expect any witnesses to come from?
    The gazillion passersby can only see and hear the entire incident when it's convenient to Crowley? Otherwise, only he can see and hear what's happening - and everybody but him lies about it afterward? Because that's how it plays out in his report. Of course, that's as convincing as anything else you've said about his report.

    Quote Quoting blueeagle
    View Post
    What do ya'll say to this?
    Please see my prior discussion of "contempt of cop".

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Henry Louis Gates Arrested for Failure to Identify

    Quote Quoting aaron
    View Post

    Please see my prior discussion of "contempt of cop".

    I think after this MA may revise it's disorderly statute, but as to date it has not been declared Void for vagueness.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: St Louis Photo-Ticket
    By MannyMcphee in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 06:47 PM
  2. Sentencing: Arrested For Failure To Appear, What Will Happen In Court?
    By seth112 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 08:10 PM
  3. Medical Malpractice: Possible Malpractice At Henry Ford's Hospital
    By marquita188 in forum Malpractice Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 06:50 PM
  4. Getting Fired: Wrongful termination in St. Louis, Missouri
    By jaejae in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2006, 06:34 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources