Cop "Not Sorry"

[Liebling:-)))]

answer the question in her post. at what point should a person be arrested?


could you reply to post 206?

I'm would like to see your legal knowledge on the issues brought up in this thread.

I explained about 1st and 4th Amendment in some of my posts last week including links as well.

I will look back my posts and link you later.

 

[Jiro]

 

[Jiro]

I explained about 1st and 4th Amendment in some of my posts last week including links as well.

I will look back my posts and link you later.

and we have explained the Supreme Court's specific ruling on 1st and 4th Amendment such as probable cause. and you chose to ignore it. oh well.

 

[darkdog]

The question isn't whether she's white or olive-skinned. The question is whether a reasonable person would think she's white. Based on her picture, I'd have to say definitely. I probably would have thought she's white. My wife has about her same skin tone and most people think she's white. Her driver's license says white.

When investigating a break-in, her exact skin tone and heritage is probably the last thing on his mind. And there's no reason I can think of to lie about her general description. To accuse him of lying based on this is really grasping at the straws.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

I explained about 1st and 4th Amendment in some of my posts last week including links as well.

I will look back my posts and link you later.

you don't have to dear. I've already read them and know they are incorrect.


you claim Crowley broke amendments 1 & 4. Crowley did not, the officer had probable cause to be in Gate's house because the 911 call. he was investigating a possible home invasion. Crowley followed standard police procedures. If gate hadn't started being abuse none of this would have happened

the first amendment does NOT include being abusing towards a police officer.

 

[kokonut]

Well, that's her.

 

[Royale]

I am feeling a vibration of keys shaking here.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

The question isn't whether she's white or olive-skinned. The question is whether a reasonable person would think she's white. Based on her picture, I'd have to say definitely. I probably would have thought she's white. My wife has about her same skin tone and most people think she's white. Her driver's license says white.

When investigating a break-in, her exact skin tone and heritage is probably the last thing on his mind. And there's no reason I can think of to lie about her general description. To accuse him of lying based on this is really grasping at the straws.

and the name Whalen isn't even Portugese

 

[Jiro]

I am surprised that you posted that link because I thought Powell´s view over Crowley doesn´t support your view.

Anyway, Colin Powell took both sides between Gates and Crowley and stated his POV on both sides, not one side against Gates.

Yes, we all know that Gates was overreacted like what I said before and also Colin as well.

I see that you lack critical thinking. c'mon. This is a very simple article... easy to read. easy to understand. Let me help you - Powell's comment further strengthened my statement that Gates should have calm down and not argue with the police, no matter what. Please re-read the article again... slowly and carefully. Take your time. You will slowly see that Powell's comment is LARGELY targeted toward to Gates.

Under 1st Amendment, we can respectfully argue Police Officer if we feel being unfair treat by them as long as there´re no threat and assault. Gates argued back to Police Officer was IN Gates´s home, not outside of his home.

Gates can assume whatever he wants to Officer IN his home.

Crowley lead Gates outside then he can arrest him because he CAN´t arrest Gates IN his home without warrant.

Now we know the truth from Lucia and don´t know either Crowley tell the truth about Gates´s behavior in his home because we were not there but receive both sides of Gates and Crowley´s story.

I am on Gates and Lucia´s sides after learn that Crowley lied in his report.

I respectfully disagree with Colin for suggest that Gates should step out of his home to talk with Officer. Gates´ lawyer said that Gates´s move for say no to Officer´s order for step out of his home.

I'm not interested in your repetitive post. I'm sure a lot of us are not interested either. I thought I told you to stop repeating yourself. This is worse than my colleague's Stapler EASY red button

 

[Royale]

I see that you lack critical thinking. c'mon. This is a very simple article... easy to read. easy to understand. Let me help you - Powell's comment further strengthened my statement that Gates should have calm down and not argue with the police, no matter what. Please re-read the article again... slowly and carefully. Take your time. You will slowly see that Powell's comment is LARGELY targeted toward to Gates.




I'm not interested in your repetitive post. I'm sure a lot of us are not interested either. I thought I told you to stop repeating yourself. This is worse than my colleague's Stapler's EASY red button

I am one of them. I tend to ignore her replies.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

and we have explained the Supreme Court's specific ruling on 1st and 4th Amendment such as probable cause. and you chose to ignore it. oh well.

No, you ignore it, not me.

you don't have to dear. I've already read them and know they are incorrect.


you claim Crowley broke amendments 1 & 4. Crowley did not, the officer had probable cause to be in Gate's house because the 911 call. he was investigating a possible home invasion. Crowley followed standard police procedures. If gate hadn't started being abuse none of this would have happened

the first amendment does NOT include being abusing towards a police officer.

Are you saying that Mass. law is also incorrect as well?

1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, Gates can assume what he wants to and can demand anything from Police Officer what he wants. Accord Crowley´s statement that Gates accused Crowley as a racist IN his home.

Crowley should give his name and badge number what Gates demand and thank for prove IDs and wish him nice day, left without further questions. Is it not hard?

Therefore Crowley don´t like Gates´s tone for accuse him as a racist and demand his name and badge number. Crowley created a violation of 272/53 to lead Gates to on his porch then he can arrest him for disorderly conduct which is an absurd that´s why the charge was dropped.

Can you explain why Crowley can´t arrest Gates IN his home? Accord 4th Amendment, Crowley abused because he went in Gate´s home without Gates´s permission and also warrant as well.

Crowley abused Gates´s freedom of speech for arrest him because Crowley don´t like Gates´s accusation. It´s freedom of speech accord 1st Amendment, not disorderly conduct.

 

[Jiro]

No, you ignore it, not me.

Please read post #66 and 67 on Supreme Court's specific ruling on 1st and 4th Amendment. (1)Please tell me if you understand what PROBABLE CAUSE means.

Are you saying that Mass. law is also incorrect as well?

1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, Gates can assume what he wants to and can demand anything from Police Officer what he wants. Accord Crowley´s statement that Gates accused Crowley as a racist IN his home.

Crowley should give his name and badge number what Gates demand and thank for prove IDs and left without further questions.

Therefore Crowley don´t like Gates´s tone for accuse him as a racist and demand his name and badge number. Crowley created a violation of 272/53 to lead Gates to on his porch then he can arrest him for disorderly conduct which is an absurd that´s why the charge was dropped.

Can you explain why Crowley can´t arrest Gates IN his home? Accord 4th Amendment, Crowley abused because he went in Gate´s home without Gates´s permission and also warrant as well.

Crowley abused Gates´s freedom of speech for arrest him because Crowley don´t like Gates´s accusation. It´s freedom of speech accord 1st Amendment, not disorderly conduct.

I'm guessing you're a parrot in your past life?

Liebling - you are not making sense at all about Crowling lying, fabricating, violating laws. (2)If he is, then why isn't he suspended by Internal Affairs Department for fabricating/lying? (3)Why Gates has not filed a complaint against Crowley?

Please answer my 3 questions - I bold'ed the numbers for you.

 

[kokonut]

Not right, but somehow misguided on your part. Yeah, let's move on since we obviously know who is wrong then?

 

[Foxrac]

No, you ignore it, not me.



Are you saying that Mass. law is also incorrect as well?

1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, Gates can assume what he wants to and can demand anything from Police Officer what he wants. Accord Crowley´s statement that Gates accused Crowley as a racist IN his home.

Crowley should give his name and badge number what Gates demand and thank for prove IDs and wish him nice day, left without further questions. Is it not hard?

Therefore Crowley don´t like Gates´s tone for accuse him as a racist and demand his name and badge number. Crowley created a violation of 272/53 to lead Gates to on his porch then he can arrest him for disorderly conduct which is an absurd that´s why the charge was dropped.

Can you explain why Crowley can´t arrest Gates IN his home? Accord 4th Amendment, Crowley abused because he went in Gate´s home without Gates´s permission and also warrant as well.

Crowley abused Gates´s freedom of speech for arrest him because Crowley don´t like Gates´s accusation. It´s freedom of speech accord 1st Amendment, not disorderly conduct.

There's no guarantee about totally freedom of speech under 1st Amendment, there's exception that does not cover the freedom of speech, if you decide to disorderly conduct against police then you will arrest because it's not right way to say like that. Only our judge will make decide about situation with 1st Amendment, there's some part does not cover it and you have going be careful about what are you saying to police.

 

[sallylou]

I'm a lawyer. I don't practice criminal law, and I wouldn't feel comfortable arguing over probable cause in court. That area of law is complex and changes. There's a reason that attorneys specialize. BTW, probable cause is used to exclude evidence in a criminal proceeding. It usually isn't an issue in another context. If evidence of an alleged crime cannot be admitted and the prosecutor can't make the case, the defendant walks free. That's why it's important.

I think that these two men got in to a old-fashioned, testosterone-fueled pissing match. It's like 7th grade! The officer should not have arrested Gates in his own house. Both men could have acted more rationally and the situation would not have escalated. There are some class issues here, too, which no one has mentioned. Acclaimed Ivy League professor v. working class police officer. I think that they both need to get over themselves.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

Are you saying that Mass. law is also incorrect as well?

no I'm say your interpretations of the amendments and some laws are flawed

1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, Gates can assume what he wants to and can demand anything from Police Officer what he wants. Accord Crowley´s statement that Gates accused Crowley as a racist IN his home.

not what the 1st amendment is for

Crowley should give his name and badge number what Gates demand and thank for prove IDs and left without further questions.

name and badge number is displayed on the blues. Gates was only demanding the information to give him a hard time. Gate's behavor lead to his arrest.

If gates behaved in a differently none of this would have happened.

Therefore Crowley don´t like Gates´s tone for accuse him as a racist and demand his name and badge number. Crowley created a violation of 272/53 to lead Gates to on his porch then he can arrest him for disorderly conduct which is an absurd that´s why the charge was dropped.

actually it happens all the time without the charges be dropped, if gates was not a public figure and didn't know "the chief" he would be sitting in a cell.

again this entire ordeal would not have happened if gates behaved more appropriately. gate's did follow crowley out onto that porch. yet more stupidity on gate's

once more. when crowly showed up. all gates had to do was be respectful, prove his residence, which is standard police procedure and they both would have walked away...

Can you explain why Crowley can´t arrest Gates IN his home? Accord 4th Amendment, Crowley abused because he went in Gate´s home without Gates´s permission and also warrant as well.

Crowley could go in because of probable cause. the 911 call.
yes he can not arrest for disorderly conduct in a private residence. disorderly conduct involves the public. to be in violation of it. in this case, one must give the cop abuse in public.

Crowley abused Gates´s freedom of speech for arrest him because Crowley don´t like Gates´s accusation. It´s freedom of speech accord 1st Amendment, not disorderly conduct.

being abusive to a cop is not freedom of speech, it is not cover under the first amendment.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

I'm a lawyer. I don't practice criminal law, and I wouldn't feel comfortable arguing over probable cause in court. That area of law is complex and changes. There's a reason that attorneys specialize. BTW, probable cause is used to exclude evidence in a criminal proceeding. It usually isn't an issue in another context. If evidence of an alleged crime cannot be admitted and the prosecutor can't make the case, the defendant walks free. That's why it's important.

ok. since the 911 call was made, did the police violate 4th Amendment rights by being at/in Gate's home investigating a possible break-in and asking to prove residence with ID?

I think that these two men got in to a old-fashioned, testosterone-fueled pissing match. It's like 7th grade! The officer should not have arrested Gates in his own house. Both men could have acted more rationally and the situation would not have escalated. There are some class issues here, too, which no one has mentioned. Acclaimed Ivy League professor v. working class police officer. I think that they both need to get over themselves.

agree with ya.


and gate's was arrested outside of his house :P

 

[kokonut]

1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging ("to cut short") the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Liebling, 1st Amendment is all about Congress that cannot make a law that limits or prohibits freedom of speech, the press, limiting religion, the right to peaceably assemble and such. 1st Amendment isn't about free speech but about limiting Congress' power on to limit free spech.

You're in the wrong on this one.

 

[Jiro]

1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging ("to cut short") the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Liebling, 1st Amendment is all about Congress that cannot make a law that limits or prohibits freedom of speech, the press, limiting religion, the right to peaceably assemble and such. 1st Amendment isn't about free speech but about limiting Congress' power on to limit free spech.

You're in the wrong on this one.

and sadly enough... it's one of the most misunderstood Constitutional rights.

shameless.......

 

[Jiro]

link

PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

link

Probable cause is a standard used in justifying certain police actions. For example, police need to have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists in requesting a search warrant to be issued. It is more than mere suspicion but less than the amount of evidence required for conviction.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has two clauses. The first states that people have a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the second states that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause. Probable cause is the level of evidence held by a rational and objective observer necessary to justify logically accusing a specific suspect of a particular crime based upon reliable objective facts.

For example, a police officer may claim there is probable cause for attempted theft when someone is found trespassing on private property late at night wearing a stocking mask, in order to justify stopping and searching the person for possession of criminal tools.

there you go. Crowley had a valid probable cause.

if you are still not satisfied - I can refer you to academic research papers on Probable Cause.

citation source:
1. Probable Cause for Entry - California Law Review; Nov68, Vol. 56 Issue 6, p1680, 9p
2. The Reasonableness of Probable Cause - Texas Law Review; Mar2003, Vol. 81 Issue 4, p951, 79p