Cop "Not Sorry"

[sallylou]

Jiro, get your J.D. off the back of a cereal box? Of course, if you're one of my colleagues, we can talk shop.

 

[Cheri]

the arrest was for his conduct towards the officer, the fact he showed his ID and proved his residence does not excuse his behavior...

It's not a crime to insult a police officer. Gates' behavior may be rude and wrong, but it's not a criminal. That's why the charges were dropped.

But, if Gates was outside and was very loud, the police can make an arrest for disturbing the peace.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

It's not a crime to insult a police officer. Gates' behavior may be rude and wrong, but it's not a criminal. That's why the charges were dropped.
But, if Gates was outside and was very loud, the police can make an arrest for disturbing the peace.

there are other crimes that you can be charged with as a result of the insults. if in a public place is disturbing the peace. if the conduct was interfering with the duties of a police officer that is not cooperating. if the conduct was in a threating manner would be considered threatening the life of a law enforcement officer.

though in some state and cities a simple insult like: "your eyes looked glazed, have you been eating donuts"? is a ticket with a small fine on the grounds of instigating or antagonizing some BS like that.

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, get your J.D. off the back of a cereal box? Of course, if you're one of my colleagues, we can talk shop.

not interested. just adding more facts that you conveniently left out. beside - you are not a criminal lawyer and your explanation of probable cause is not even related to this so....

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

Of course, :roll:

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

I´m really feel sorry for you.

Liebling - you are not making sense at all about Crowling lying, fabricating, violating laws.

I find interesting that you ignore the fact that the 3 lies in Crowley´s report, which is not match 911 Caller´s statement and police´s audio radio.

(2)

If he is, then why isn't he suspended by Internal Affairs Department for fabricating/lying?

Very, very, very simple is:

They police community protect each other like what they did with many police brutality cases.

We learn that police officers are not always to be trusted.

(3)

Why Gates has not filed a complaint against Crowley?

Yes, they (Crowley and Gates) consider to file a lawsuit each other.

Crowley considering defamation lawsuit against Gates.

Report: Sgt. Crowley Considering Defamation Lawsuit in Gates Controversy JONATHAN TURLEY

I personally think Crowley´s chance against Gates is weak.

Should Henry Louis Gates Sip or Sue?
Should Henry Louis Gates Sip or Sue? - The Moral of the Story Blog - NYTimes.com

Gates has a good chance to file a lawsuit against Crowley under 1st and 4th Amendment rights but Obama urged him to calm down and invite him & Crowley to have a beer with him.

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

I hope my answer to your 3 questions satisfy you.

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.

I check with my American co-workers on this today. I will apology if I am wrong about 1st and 4th Amendment but they confirmed my statement is correction.

Accord the link, the citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize police Officers but not assault/threat/violence like what I tried to say in my previous posts.

Just say 'no' to police searches...

Just Say 'No' to Police Searches | FlexYourRights.org

At Your Door Scenario

At Your Door Scenario | FlexYourRights.org

I read from pos. 1 to pos. 6 at residence. It´s same rights here in Germany as well.

Anyway, you can click Just say 'no' to police searches...on the subway...., during a traffic stop....., during a street stop.... and at your residence...

I´ve read about traffic stop... Ouuccchh... no 1st Amendment rights but just 4th Amendment right.


Urban Dictionary: 1st Amendment

Urban Dictionary: 4th Amendment

It shows that Gates did not violate the law.

 

[Jiro]

Liebling - just because you asked your American co-workers does not mean they know it very well. That's why we have lawyers. I find it funny that you trust your American co-workers over us (we are American citizens too and we live here). I gave you legal definition and academic source of Probable Cause. It supported Crowley's case.

You are not wrong about Amendment 1 and 4 but you are not understanding that it is actually much more complicated than that. You ignored our explanation of Amendment 4 and Probable Cause along with Supreme Court's ruling. You are misunderstanding the use of Amendment 1 in this case because it's not applicable.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

lets be even more pc and lets add another color to race group. The Olive-Americans. it will contain Italians and Portugese, yeah lets dived the even more color groups, let's....

nah stupid idea that is, just like it is a stupid idea the way we dived by colors now...

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.

No matter what, they do use different races, not just black and white.

Example: They use 3 different races in that link - White, Black & Hispance.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174

And the 911 Operator also ASKED Lucia Whalen which races, White, Black or Hispance as well, not just white or black.

CSinned´s postpolice report are written after the event. Crowley wrote it down long after receiving the 911 call. human error doesn't make some one a racist or racial profiler.

she also said hispanic, and crowley dealt with gates at the house who was black. so since crowley wrote the report after the arrest and booking, human error made him think "black" while typing up the report

The 3 or 4 lies in police report, not just "one human error".

Example: Officer lied about Gates´ yelled. Gates have doctor´s report that he can´t yelled or scream aloud. The audio radio prove it that Gates did not yell and also lied about Lucia described him "black men......" She never mentioned one word "black" to him and 911 Operator. Tapes prove it.

Do you still call it as "human error"? :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Liebling - just because you asked your American co-workers does not mean they know it very well. That's why we have lawyers. I find it funny that you trust your American co-workers over us (we are American citizens too and we live here). I gave you legal definition and academic source of Probable Cause. It supported Crowley's case.

You are not wrong about Amendment 1 and 4 but you are not understanding that it is actually much more complicated than that. You ignored our explanation of Amendment 4 and Probable Cause along with Supreme Court's ruling. You are misunderstanding the use of Amendment 1 in this case because it's not applicable.

Not that I don´t beleive you or not trust you but confusion because you, Koko, CSinned and Foxrac said that I am wrong.

Now you said for a first time that I am not wrong.

 

[Jiro]

Not that I don´t beleive you or not trust you but confusion because you, Koko, CSinned and Foxrac said that I am wrong.

Now you said for a first time that I am not wrong.

You just further proved our assumption about you -
1. you lack critical thinking
2. you tend to misunderstand a lot
3. you are extremely selective when reading the articles

Please re-read my post. Let me show you an example.

My Original Post

Liebling - just because you asked your American co-workers does not mean they know it very well. That's why we have lawyers. I find it funny that you trust your American co-workers over us (we are American citizens too and we live here). I gave you legal definition and academic source of Probable Cause. It supported Crowley's case.

You are not wrong about Amendment 1 and 4 but you are not understanding that it is actually much more complicated than that. You ignored our explanation of Amendment 4 and Probable Cause along with Supreme Court's ruling. You are misunderstanding the use of Amendment 1 in this case because it's not applicable.

This is how you read and think

I find it funny that you trust your American co-workers over us (we are American citizens too and we live here).

You are not wrong about Amendment 1 and 4

So let me help you understand my post.

You are not wrong about Amendment 1 and 4 but you are not understanding that it is actually much more complicated than that. You ignored our explanation of Amendment 4 and Probable Cause along with Supreme Court's ruling. You are misunderstanding the use of Amendment 1 in this case because it's not applicable.

 

[darkdog]

No matter what, they do use different races, not just black and white.

Example: They use 3 different races in that link - White, Black & Hispance.

Project America: Crime: Prison Population: Prison Population by Race

And the 911 Operator also ASKED Lucia Whalen which races, White, Black or Hispance as well, not just white or black.

So between white, black, and Hispanic, it's a toss-up between white and Hispanic. Based on her appearance, it's reasonable to conclude she's white. It's also reasonable to conclude she's Hispanic, albeit a light-skinned one. It's fuzzy.

The 3 or 4 lies in police report, not just "one human error".

Example: Officer lied about Gates´ yelled. Gates have doctor´s report that he can´t yelled or scream aloud. The audio radio prove it that Gates did not yell and also lied about Lucia described him "black men......" She never mentioned one word "black" to him and 911 Operator. Tapes prove it.

Do you still call it as "human error"? :roll:

Here's the audio.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDapglzINc]YouTube - HQ - Henry Gates Police Dispatch Audio - Cambridge, Mass.[/ame]

It's just police dispatches, so most of it is silence between dispatches. The quality isn't very good and certainly the background doesn't come through very well, especially over Crowley's voice while he's speaking directly into the microphone. I can hear Gates in the background during a few points. At 2:22, Gates is certainly yelling and it sounds like he's saying "I am outraged!" or something like that.

By the way, have you ever remembered a minor detail wrong after an event? If so, then LIAR!!!

(By the way, I'm not actually calling you a liar. Just making a point.)

 

[Liebling:-)))]

no I'm say your interpretations of the amendments and some laws are flawed not what the 1st amendment is for

Check my response post #247 toward Foxrac including links.

name and badge number is displayed on the blues. Gates was only demanding the information to give him a hard time.

Gates has the right to ask Police Officer for his badge and ID. The Police officer must provide it, not try to arrest him.

A Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explainer roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine

It create problem for refuse to provide what Gates demand.

Gate's behavor lead to his arrest.

Yes, Gates may be overreacted but he did is not illegal.

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

I see different.

Accord Gates´s statement:

Everything would be different if Police Officer treat Gates with respect... something like that.

Police Officer should answer Gates´s question "Officer, can I help you?". Hello, I am Police Officer Crowley and explain why............... in friendly way.

And ask Gates nicely for his ID. After prove him who he is, then Crowley should apologize and leave instead of further questions after check Gates´s ID.

Some people like Gates have ill-manner, just ignore and wish them nice day, and leave.

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.

Accord the law, Gates did not commit illegal because Gates is not a suspect but homeowner.

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

No, stupidty on Crowley´s action for ignore Gates´ repeatly demand for his ID and badge number.

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...

He proved Crowley who he was and this home is his. It doesn´t satisfy Crowley but make more questions after examined Gates´s ID. Why further questions for? Gates choose to not answer. It create more problem... lead Gates overreacted and misunderstood and then demand his ID and badge number.

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.

No, Gates told Crowley on the porch who he is and it´s him who break in his home. Crowley KNEW now that Gates is homeowner, not suspect but Crowley still want to see Gates´s ID. Gates went to kitchen to get ID but Crowley went into his home without Gates´ permission.

Accord disorderly conduct A Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explainer roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine - Gates did is not disorderly conduct.

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

Yes, that´s right that abusive, assault, violience and threat toward police officer is not freedom of speech under 1st Amendment. Gates did none of all but accused Police Officer as a racist, that´s all. Accusation is not abusive, assault, violence and threat, Right?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Here's the audio.
YouTube - HQ - Henry Gates Police Dispatch Audio - Cambridge, Mass.

It's just police dispatches, so most of it is silence between dispatches. The quality isn't very good and certainly the background doesn't come through very well, especially over Crowley's voice while he's speaking directly into the microphone. I can hear Gates in the background during a few points. At 2:22, Gates is certainly yelling and it sounds like he's saying "I am outraged!" or something like that.

By the way, have you ever remembered a minor detail wrong after an event? If so, then LIAR!!!

(By the way, I'm not actually calling you a liar. Just making a point.)

Sorry I´m and can´t hear what the video says but my co-workers heard the video and told me yesterday that it doesn´t tell that Gates yell or scream very much.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Obama made this local news into a national news.

Obama was ASKED for his reaction on Gates´ case. He did not name Crowley to the public but said that The Police Officer acted stupid to arrest Gates after proved who he is and his home, that´s all.

Not Crowley.

Are you sure? Something wrong with your head...

Barbaro, darkdog and you are the one who posted the link of Crowley´s report to here. Who post the police report to the internet/public? Are you saying that it´s Obama, not Crowley?

Obama misspoke and turned this news into a racial debate.

I do not see anything about racial about Obama.

Not Crowley.

Are you sure?

Crowley mentioned race in his report. Yes, he use those word "black........." in his report. If you can´t remember then go back and re-read Crowley´s police report to fresh your memory.

Please kindly point out where in Lucia's statement that Crowley's erroneous report ruined her life.

Are you just really stupid, or a troll?

Lucia´s name was mentioned in Crowley´s report. If you can´t remember then go back and re-read Crowley´s report. It hurts Lucia´s image because he claimed in his report that Lucia mentioend "black........" to him. Crowley´s report are everywhere to the public and internet, put Lucia in a bad situtation. Lucia CAN sue Crowley for defamatary

You know Obama made a serious mistake by commenting on it without knowing fact first and by targeting the blame to wrong party and worse of all - he made this a racial issue when it was not in the first place. because of that - Lucia's life was threatened by ignorant, angry people.

Obama acknowledge his error and accept his responsible for his word because he should pick those word differently. What Obama said about Police Officer is true but he should keep his opinion himself, not to the public and pick something differently.

I do not see anything about racial.

Lucia´s life was threatened by ignorants because of Crowley and his false report everywhere to the public/interent. Crowley claimed that Lucia told him that it´s 2 black........ Lucia spoke to clear her name that she never mentioned the word "2 black...." to Crowley and 911 Operator.

and now we move on.....

Yes

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

Check my response post #247 including links toward Foxrac.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Apologies aren't expected at 'beer summit'
Cambridge cop, Harvard professor to join Obama for brews at White House

updated 2:00 p.m. ET July 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not expect his "beer summit" will be a mediation session for the black professor and the white policeman who arrested him to work out their differences, the White House said Thursday.

Obama invited Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley to join him for a beer in hopes of quieting the furor over the president's comment that in taking Gates into custody police had "acted stupidly."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that none of the three planned to say anything about their meeting when reporters are allowed to join them Thursday evening during a brief photo opportunity.

"This is not an after action report," Gibbs said, adding that the White House "is not here to mediate any apologies."

Crowley arrested Gates and charged him with disorderly conduct for protesting the policeman's actions when he came to the professor's home in response to a report of a possible break-in. The charges were later dropped.

A new poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 41 percent disapproved of Obama's handling of the Gates arrest, compared with 29 percent who approved. The poll also found that nearly 80 percent of Americans said they are now aware of Obama's comments on the matter.

The president's approval ratings also fell, especially among working class whites, as the focus of the Gates story shifted from details about the incident to Obama's remarks, the poll said. Among whites in general, more disapprove than approve of his comments by a 2-1 margin.

The poll of 1,506 adults was conducted Wednesday to Sunday last week. Among those interviewed on Wednesday and Thursday, 53 percent of whites approved of Obama's job performance. This slipped to 46 percent among whites interviewed Friday through Sunday as the Gates story played out. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Not a summit, just a beer, Obama says - White House- msnbc.com

 

[darkdog]

Sorry I´m and can´t hear what the video says but my co-workers heard the video and told me yesterday that it doesn´t tell that Gates yell or scream very much.

I understand that. I'm just saying the audio is a poor guide to judge the extent of yelling, although it does indicate there was at least some yelling.

 

[Cheri]

there are other crimes that you can be charged with as a result of the insults..

Of course-- In the end the police always wins.

I've known someone who had her shared of run in with the police in the past, and how she was shouted at and had her vehicle searched through even through she did not objected nor she had gave consent to a search of her vehicle, she knew her rights that they cannot search the vehicle or home without a warrant. But, she was more afraid if she had objected then the officer would have arrested her. It's like every citizens have to drop to their knees while in the presence of a police officer. :roll:

 

[C.C.Sinned]

Check my response post #247 toward Foxrac including links.

urban dictionary is an impecible source for all legal references

Gates has the right to ask Police Officer for his badge and ID. The Police officer must provide it, not try to arrest him.

A Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explainer roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine

It create problem for refuse to provide what Gates demand.

name and badge number are on the police officer's uniform. Gates asking him to prove his identity, lead to Gate's arrest when he left the inside of his residence

Yes, Gates may be overreacted but he did is not illegal.

in some cases it is, the police use different laws to back themselves up and use it agaist the accused.

again all gate's had to do was show Crowley his ID and be resectful,

I see different.

Accord Gates´s statement:

Everything would be different if Police Officer treat Gates with respect... something like that.

Police Officer should answer Gates´s question "Officer, can I help you?". Hello, I am Police Officer Crowley and explain why............... in friendly way.

And ask Gates nicely for his ID. After prove him who he is, then Crowley should apologize and leave instead of further questions after check Gates´s ID.

Some people like Gates have ill-manner, just ignore and wish them nice day, and leave.

they both should have been treating each other with respect.

Accord the law, Gates did not commit illegal because Gates is not a suspect but homeowner.

no he was a suspect until he proved his identity. then he was a home owner

No, stupidty on Crowley´s action for ignore Gates´ repeatly demand for his ID and badge number.

no

He proved Crowley who he was and this home is his. It doesn´t satisfy Crowley but make more questions after examined Gates´s ID. Why further questions for? Gates choose to not answer. It create more problem... lead Gates overreacted and misunderstood and then demand his ID and badge number.

nope

No, Gates told Crowley on the porch who he is and it´s him who break in his home. Crowley KNEW now that Gates is homeowner, not suspect but Crowley still want to see Gates´s ID. Gates went to kitchen to get ID but Crowley went into his home without Gates´ permission..

he didn't know for sure, until the ID was provided.
theives do lie and claim the home is their home when being caught in the act. criminals lie about all kinds of things. that is why the cop needed to positively identify Gates.

the fact that there was a 911 call for possible burglary gives crowley the probable cause to enter the home.

Accord disorderly conduct A Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explainer roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine - Gates did is not disorderly conduct.

if gates was smart he would have known how to conduct himself and not have pissed off the cop

Yes, that´s right that abusive, assault, violience and threat toward police officer is not freedom of speech under 1st Amendment. Gates did none of all but accused Police Officer as a racist, that´s all. Accusation is not abusive, assault, violence and threat, Right?

which pissed off the cop that went on to arrest him, not the way to handle it

 

[C.C.Sinned]

Of course-- In the end the police always wins.

some what. the bad cops abuse those laws. good cops don't really need to use them.

I've known someone who had her shared of run in with the police in the past, and how she was shouted at and had her vehicle searched through even through she did not objected nor she had gave consent to a search of her vehicle, she knew her rights that they cannot search the vehicle or home without a warrant. But, she was more afraid if she had objected then the officer would have arrested her. It's like every citizens have to drop to their knees while in the presence of a police officer. :roll:

the police in one of the NJ towns i lived in were like that. real jerks, harrassed the hell out of me. so i learned my rights and the oroper way to deal with them.

the cops in the area I'm in now are really cool and don't bug me at all. I've even made friends with some of them...

 

[C.C.Sinned]

again how much will beer summit cost the US tax payers?