Results 31 to 40 of 48
-
08-12-2009, 07:35 AM #31
I don't even know why I bother sometimes....
GrimUSMC, I realize you are or were some sort of an officer and feel like you automatically have to take Crowley's side, but you can't just make up the law
1. Gates was not required by law to produce ID....PERIOD! He was not in a vehicle, he was in his house! If, as you say, he was subject to an Investigatory Detention, then the officer would be obligated to read him his Miranda rights. Gates would not be required to say a single word, nor would he be required to provide any type of evidence that may later be used against him.
2. No, they were not permitted to enter the home without probable cause. Like I said earlier....a broken window or door or something like that could've been PC, but there absolutely must be PC! Since the officer did not mention any PC in his report or exactly how he came to be in the house, I'm going to not argue this further. But you're crazy if you think an officer can just walk into your home simply because he's responding to a 911 call of a "POSSIBLE B&E"
3. What's your point? Screaming at police officers is not against the law, especially when you are standing on your own front porch. There doesn't need to be a legitimate purpose.
4. You can "truly believe" it all you want...but obviously you opened the link to the law I provided, read it, and decided you didn't like the law and are now disregarding it.
I don't understand at all why everybody seems to think screaming at a police officer is illegal....it may be irrational, but certainly not illegal.
-
-
08-12-2009, 09:26 AM #32
Red. The PC thing is true, but The officer can still enter to investigate a call. if crowley walked in the house and found 40 pounds of dope, Gates would have an argument and possibly could get off free from the dope charge. This is not the same thing.
-
08-12-2009, 11:16 AM #33
The officer stated that Gates' behavior was unusual and strange for a person that owned the home. He had the belief that something might be wrong.
-
-
08-12-2009, 11:39 PM #34
in the scenario you describe, gates would absolutely get off on the dope charge.
i don't think we are really disagreeing on this point...but it must be clear...an officer can not enter the residence without probable cause. the officer on the scene must observe or witness this probable cause. He can not just simply enter a residence because he's respoding to a "possible b&e" call...he must personally witness some evidence which leads him to believe that a crime is taking place, and that a person or property is in imminent danger.
the officer also stated that he was led to believe that gates was in the home lawfully...therefore his unusual behavior is really irrelevant.
-
08-13-2009, 12:42 AM #35
If this arrest was so unlawful, I have no idea why an academic like Gates wouldn't sue.
-
-
08-13-2009, 01:12 AM #36
Red, how are you goign to sit here and tell me that he does not need to provide ID? He was the subject of an Investigatory Detention!!! Look that one up. He is required to show ID, PERIOD. Dont sit here and tyry to proclaim that you know the law when you are wrong.
Screamign at a police officer may ntio be illegal, but causing a disturbance by commiting an act which serves nop legitimate purpose while standing on your front porch, thats Disorderly Conduct.
As for entering the house, what where they supposed to do? Show up, see the door forced openm, then leave?? Be realistic dude. OR even beter, walk in, see him sittign there and when he says its his place, leave?? Because people NEVER Lie to the police. Red, you need to stop living in your fantasy world of what you learn on Law and Order. Dont give me the whole "Freedom of Speech" argument, or the "you cant go in that house without a warrant" argument. There are laws liek the disorderly conduct law for peopel whose speech is causing a disturbance to other people. Its nto freedom of speech when your actrions are causing probpems for others, its a crime.
Ironic that Mr. Gates didnt simply say thank you to the officers for checkign on his house and makign sure he belonged there, when his place was previously broken into. No he yells at them because he thinks hes being "Mistreated" when they were just doing there job, or he feels hes entitled to special treatment because hes a "Black Harvard Professor" Give me a break. he deserved everythign he got, and I wish they woudl nto have dropped the charges. But the Obamanator made a few calls im sure. In hsi defense, that happens all the time so I dotn see a problem with that.
-
08-13-2009, 01:16 AM #37
Really?? so seing the front door was forced open isnt probabel cause to go in and look?? and when in there lawfully, he sees 40 pounds of dope, and you think he will get off on that?? Wrong again.
Or even seeign the door open, and soemoen inside, when you just received a call that two men were breakign in to the house. Thats probable cause. You dont need to see soemoen kicking the door in for "Probable cause".
-
-
08-13-2009, 11:22 AM #38
The Supreme Court says I'm right and you're wrong...of course you'll probably tell me that they are wrong too
Investigatory Detention doesn't even come in to play here...you might want to look that one up! But let's just suppose it did...he's still not required to say a word or provide any information. If the officer has a reason to believe the person has a weapon on them, he would be allowed to perform a frisk, but only to search for a weapon. You might want to look that one up!
You also clearly don't understand the definiton of disorderly conduct. I'd make it easy for you and give you all that information, but I already have, and you've ignored it...so, you might want to look that one up!
and you're sadly sadly mistaken on the dope thing...i'll let you look that one up!
heck, your boys on fox news even agree with me! of couse you'll probably tell me that he's wrong too
-
08-13-2009, 11:48 AM #39
Red, how is he not the subject of an investigatory detention? Hes in a home where they were told two men were trying to break into? And yes, Investigatory detention equals you must ID yourself. When has the Supreme court said anything different?
And the dope thing, Look up Plain View. If theyre in there legally, which they would be if they saw the door pryed open or even saw him in there after being told two people were breaking into the house, anything they see in plain view is open to seizure. Thats a fact. Do you knwo how many drug arrests result from something that had nothing to do with drugs?
The fats are this, Gates was required to ID himself. How else would the Police know he was there legally? Listen to yourself. Would they just go "Oh, you say you live here?" Okay then we will leave." Thats beyond unreasonable. They cant go into the house without probable cause. Your right, if the house were secure and no one were inside, then yes they woudl have no cause to go in. Soemone was inside and the doro was forced open. Either one of those facts equals probable cause to go in and ivestigatie a possibel B&E call. Or woudl you rather they show up and say "o, nothign we can do. I know this place was broken into recently, and theres someone in there, and we received a call that peopel were breakign in, BUT we cant do anythign" thats rediculous, and thats how you sound. Stop trying to distort the facts.
Like I said, your like all of the others who think they know the law. You sit there and talk about yet you have never been there.
Final question which you never answered. Are the police required to give someone a phone call when they were arrested?? I want to hear your answer on this one.
-
08-13-2009, 11:54 AM #40
prove it
-
Originally Posted by RedGoneWILD 
