New Wave Outpost Forum

by **i_like_lectric_motors** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:14 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
You need probable cause-- the belief that the person has committed a crime. See the 4th Amendment.
[/quote]

You don't need "belief" when the person IS committing the crime right in front of you and several witnesses. He was being disorderly, he was warned twice ... and only then has he cuffed. It was totally justified.

The police report for anyone who actually wants to take the time to read it:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... ates2.html

by **MARV** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:43 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
 "Me personally? Not really. I'd be happy to see the police doing their job and my neighbors watching my property. I like to think that I'm wise enough to know that perception and reality don't always intersect. If I'm suspected of a crime, no way would I provoke a cop."

It's pretty easy to imagine being cool and collected through an experience like that, and feeling admiration for the police. But people can often be unpredictable, and circumstances can easily cloud your otherwise sunny disposition.[/quote]

Yes, it is rather easy.....for someone like me who actually has been stopped by police to answer questions. You see, I've always had this uncanny ability to know how to speak to a cop...so I've been told. I'm going to ask that you stop dictating how people "should" or "would" respond for obvious reasons.

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
 Just because a police office comes to your house to investigate a complaint, it does not mean the officer has grounds to detain you for a round of questioning.[/quote]

Of course it does. Gates was the prime suspect in a supposed break-in. You're really going out on a limb here.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

by **Bitter Almonds** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:59 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar¡Ì[/i]
 I tend to respect and fully cooperate with those who have hand cuffs and the ability to put me in jail for the night. But that's just me.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¡èt=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

i.e. Because these assholes tend to blow a gasket and they can abuse their power and authority. I tend to tell them to "shove it!" when anyone in a position of authority is wrong[}:)]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9O2Kg6Jh4A&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="268"></embed>

by **Bitter Almonds** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:04 pm

by **Bitter Almonds** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:19 pm

More snuff video[}:)]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3SoBn86IPTE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="268"></embed>

The low-life piece of shit pig ended up breaking the other low-life piece of shit scum's neck[}:)]

by **SallyLightfoot** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:32 pm

[b]Marv:[/b] "You see, I've always had this uncanny ability to know how to speak to a cop...so I've been told. I'm going to ask that you stop dictating how people "should" or "would" respond for obvious reasons."

Good for you, but a person may speak however one likes to a cop (save making threats of violence or imminent danger), and it is fully protected by the 1st amendment. I'm not dictating anything, just that people exercise their rights under the law, and that those rights be respected without resorting to arrest on false charges.

[b]Marv:[/b] "Of course it does. Gates was the prime suspect in a supposed break-in. You're really going out on a limb here."

According to the police report, Crowley learned early that Gates was not a perpetrator of a break-in. He writes, "... I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence... Gates [demanded] that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."

It was clear there was no crime committed (per the complaint), and there was therefore no probable cause for Sgt. Crowley to remain on the premises or make demands of Gates after being asked to leave. Crowley should have left-- he needed probable cause to take further action, [i]and he had jack squat[/i].

Instead of leaving, however, Crowley arrests Gates for <a href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-53.htm" target="_new">disorderly conduct</a>, which was untenable charge based on the law and the facts as described. Besides, normally a disorderly conduct charge would result in a summons, not an arrest.

The way I see it, Crowley arrested Gates on that lame charge not because of racism, but because he didn't like being insulted by a jackass professor. This was retribution. To call Gates outbursts an act of public/moral disorder when it took place on his private property (and there were no public complaints) is laughable. The charges were dropped because they were simply indefensible.

Also, under Mass law, Sgt. Crowley was <a href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm" target="_new">obligated to provide his name and badge number</a> to Gates. A lot was going on at the time, but Crowley did not fulfill that request.

REFERENCES

<a href="http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/07/gates-gate-whats-the-law-say.html" target="_new">[b]Gates-gate: What's the Law Say?[/b]</a>
"The controversy over Gates' arrest is unlikely to die down anytime soon. But one conclusion seems clear -- the legal ground for his arrest was shaky from the start."

<a href="http://www.samefacts.com/archives/crime_control_/2009/07/nightmare_on_ware_street.php" target="_new">[b]Nightmare on Ware Street[/b]</a>
Lowry Heussler, who has worked on police-misconduct cases in Massachusetts, writes: "Sgt. Crowley's report almost certainly contains intentional falsehoods, but even accepting his account at face value, the report tells us all we need to conclude that Crowley was in the wrong here, and by a large factor."

[b]Henry Louis Gates’ Contempt Of Cop[/b]
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/ ... pt-of-cop/

[b]Giant Gates FAQ[/b]
http://chalicechick.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... s-faq.html
"Q: If Gates was really rude and Crowley arrested him for a trumped-up charge, then why is Crowley in the wrong and Gates not?
A: Because "always be polite to the police" is not a requirement to be an American citizen. "Don't make illegal arrests" IS a requirement to be a police officer."

by **SallyLightfoot** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:25 am

I found this article useful in expressing some of the issues here that disturb me about the Gates incident.

<a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gatesgate-by-digby-i-have-been.html" target="_new">[b]Gatesgate[/b]</a> (excerpt)
"I've watched too many taser videos over the past few years featuring people of all races and both genders being put to the ground screaming in pain, not because they were dangerous or threatening and not because they were so out of control there was no other way to deal with them, but because they were arguing with police and the officer perceived a lack of respect for the badge...

I said the other night that I thought Gates was lucky he didn't get tased and I really think he was. People all over this country are "subdued" by means of electricity every day, probably more blacks than whites, but it doesn't seem to be particularly limited to race. We are accepting this kind of thing as if it's just an inevitability because of the attitudes this police officer very thoughtfully lays out in his essay: we are told that we must defer to authority or risk all hell breaking loose.

And I would suggest that it is just that attitude that led to people in this country recently endorsing unilateral illegal invasions, torture of prisoners and the rest. You remember the line --- "the constitution isn't a suicide pact." To which many of us replied with the old Benjamin Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... -been.html

by **MARV** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:31 am

Yeah, um...so anyway.....like I said, cooler heads always prevail. But to each their own.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

by **club80** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:36 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
 [quote][i]Originally posted by club80[/i] 
Absolutely. Not because we've gotten older. It's because we've gotten wiser. The ramifications of having a record becomes more meaningful once you have a family and it affects your livelihood.
[/quote]
Bullshit to that. The whole idea of "go along to get along" is anathematic to individual liberty. Ditto the notion that an authority figure (police, mayor, congressperson, president) should be granted special deference due to their high office or power. Our revolution and constitution should have settled that matter. And while I don't think it's appropriate to verbally abuse a police officer, as citizens, we need to know our rights and assert them unapologetically.

Sometimes this means supporting people you dislike or disagree with (e.g. pick an ACLU case), because the fate of their rights and yours are the same. As an american citizen you should care a lot about things like habeas corpus, indefinite detention and torture. And while you may think terror suspects are scum (e.g., <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)" target="_new">José Padilla</a>), whatever the govt. or courts rules against their rights applies to the rights of all.

I don't think there's any shame in being arrested in defense of your rights. Individual freedoms erode over time or are stripped away when citizens who know better do nothing about it. In that context, saying "F*** you pig, this is total bullshit" is a more appropriate than avoiding confrontation. Standing up for [i]real[/i] inalienable rights becomes more meaningful when you have a family and it affects society as a whole.
[/quote]

I think you're looking too deeply into my statement.
Act 1 is polite cooperation. If, after a few minutes, cooperation does not seem to clear up the misunderstanding, more persuasive discussion should be introduced.
The statement is being made in reference to the initial "confrontation". If I'm pulled over and open a dialogue with "Fuck You Pig", who's the fool? A visit to Central Booking when negotitation is a potential tool is just plain stupid. If persuasion and common sense negotiation prove ineffective, I'll take the ticket and fight it in court. There's no reason to play the antagonist unless you know there's a battle to fight and win right there and then.
Where did torture, indefinite detention or even civil rights violations come into play? My statement is only in reference to my initial reaction and behavior. Later on, you said "If I'm suspected of a crime, no way would I provoke a cop". Exactly. That's [b]exactly what I'm saying.
I'm the first one to stand up for our liberty and to fight against those who threaten to take it away. I still have just as much venom as I did years ago. I just like to think that I'm now wise enough to know when to bite.

We didn't sell a lot of records, but somehow we left an impression.
-Johnny Ramone-

by **SallyLightfoot** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:09 am

Hi Club80--
I think we both agree on those points. It bothers me when people acquiesce police brutality and abuse of power (as long as it's happening to the other guy), but that was clearly not your position. I was too quick to pull out the soap-box.

by **Bitter Almonds** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:37 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar¡Ì[/i]
 Yeah, um...so anyway.....like I said, cooler heads always prevail. But to each their own.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¡èt=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

Just ask the dude who got shot about 40 times in NY for having a wallet on his hand[}:)]

by **MARV** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:05 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
 [quote][i]Originally posted by mar¡Ì[/i]
 Yeah, um...so anyway.....like I said, cooler heads always prevail. But to each their own.[/quote]

Just ask the dude who got shot about 40 times in NY for having a wallet on his hand[}:)]
[/quote]

Actually, that's a more appropriate question for the cop that pulled the trigger [8]

[quote][i]Originally posted by club80 to Lightfoot[/i]
 Later on, you said "If I'm suspected of a crime, no way would I provoke a cop". Exactly. That's [b]exactly what I'm saying.[/quote]

If we're following this thread post for post, you'll see it was me who said that [;)]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
 I was too quick to pull out the soap-box.[/quote]

As usual. So authoritarian.

by **Bitter Almonds** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:23 am

OH SCHNAPP![}:)]

by **MARV** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:33 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
 OH SCHNAPP![}:)][/quote]

LOL, it's all good XXX! Message boards are all good fun [8D] BTW, those Ultra-Lounge CDs never get old.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

by **Bitter Almonds** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:49 am

OT: My favourite is [i]Organs In Orbit[/i] (I think it's volume 11) with the quirky version of "Patricia." I forgot I had this one:

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/electronictoys-1.jpg">

With an Electronic version of "Yakkety-Yak"[}:)]

New Wave Outpost Forum

Hey Cambridge Police

Who is online