Welcome back, madmax. :)

Do Police Officers Have to Identify Themselves?
 

Salon - The Explainer

http://www.slate.com/id/2223379/

Good stuff. Definitely different than here.

Well, might your state chapter of the ACLU give a slightly different spin as well? I'm not saying they are fibbing but I think they'd be tempted to give an explanation that held the most expansive view of individual rights vs. what would actually hold up in a particular case.

For example, I suspect that some political speech can be disorderly conduct if for example, you had a Seattle G8 Summit kind of situation.

Idiot you say? What's your experience with idiots?

Maybe, but it seems like the Slate article is referencing the legal definition, based on the MA statutes and case law - whether or not an organization wants to stretch that definition or challenge it in the courts is a whole other issue.

The part about political speech being exempt, in a way that implied completely exempt, struck me as idealistically delusional, but perhaps the issue is that you simply wouldn't be charged with disorderly conduct in particular if you incited a riot with political speech.

I think the charge against Gates is still open to interpretation. I take the ACLU's opinion with a grain of salt when it comes to 1st Amendment issues.... and the ACLU office in Boston, Mass? Most definitely.

As to the charge that the officer improperly withheld his name and badge number? Yeah, I think he should probably get written up for that or whatever they do to discipline officers for ticky-tack violations.

Finally, its assertion that Gates was under no duty to provide ID is dead wrong. The officer most certainly had probable cause to investigate burglary. He was sent to a house looking for two black men who "broke into" the home carrying backpacks. That, whether or not the characterization is correct in the final analysis is absolutely perfect probable cause. The officer was entitled to continue to gather facts to make sure everything was as it should be. An irate man calling the officer a racist and pretending to call the chief of police is something which would probably only heighten the ordinary officer's level of suspicion.

Like I said, other than a ticky-tack violation, I see nothing wrong with how this officer handled himself.

FWIW, the Explainer thanks members of the ACLU at the conclusion of the article.

Depends on what the statute says.

That's why I mentioned it.

I suspect that the Explainer might get a more pro-police explanation from a different legal source, but I also had the impression that what case law applied to a given situation was a little more eye of the beholder than KSigKid's response allows. (I mean until the particular case was decided or resolved on appeal.)

I'm a fan of civil liberties, and when they are making an effort to protect the civil liberties of people regardless of the politics of the people in question, I'm a fan of the ACLU.

Is it race - or class - that is the issue?
 

"Skip Gates thought that he’d worked hard enough, achieved enough, become Harvard enough that this sort of treatment did not apply to him. And now, rather than channel that outrage in a way that is subtle but effective, he’s very publicly suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, having "joined the ranks of the million incarcerated black men in America." That’s laughable. He does not see those million men as kin and he doesn’t, by and large, give a damn about those guys. He’s merely annoyed that such an irritation as police misconduct found its way into his home. If he read about this story happening to a plumber in Roxbury, he’d shake his head in disappointment and then go on with his life."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/24/gates/

"But the larger problem of racial disparity in law enforcement is not caused by individual misconduct, and it will not be solved by apologies extracted under pressure or the threat of litigation. It's a symptom of the way we have chosen to deal with poverty and racial isolation in this very wealthy and supposedly egalitarian society. And it makes all police scapegoats for the failed and callous social policies that we have all chosen or acquiesced to. "

http://www.slate.com/id/2223472/

eta - I'm not saying this is my view on it (still personally unsure) but they offer interesting perspectives.

Thanks for posting.

It isn't difficult to get an idea about people from their responses. So far I have yet to be surprised. People are pretty much giving the responses I expected them to give. I understand that there are diverse backgrounds here, but some common denominators typically result in the same opinions and responses. this is one reason why I can understand where Sotomayor was coming from with the statement that she got flamed for. Many individuals on this board do not experience the kind of racism that certain minorities in this country experience. With that being the case, they are typically far less open to the notion that racism is as prevalent as it is, or they can only recognize blatant forms of racism. Despite the fact that you claim that many of the people I disagree with have expertise and diverse backgrounds, the fact remains that their responses and opinions are pretty much the generic responses of whites who either don't care that racism exists, want to sweep it under the rug instead of being faced with it, or as mentioned previously, actually require blatant forms of racism. Some of these very people that you speak of are so obstinate in their negative opinions of Dr. Gates that it leaves to question whether they are racist themselves. For the record, while I don't think all cops are bad, this situation to me reeks of racism and abuse of police power.

Except several of the people that disagree aren't "whites who don't care" about the situation. There are several minorities who have responded (to this thread and others) that just don't see the point in crying "racism" for every event that happens in the world.