Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
Also, getting loud and asking for ID, again, is not disorderly conduct.
|
It very well could be, depending on the circumstances. You're basing your entire argument here on this sort of out-of-hand dismissal, which seems unwarranted at best and disingenuous at worst.
Quote:
|
Using common sense, with all the attention this has garnered, I don't necessarily think the charges would have been dropped if they were legitimate in the first place.
|
Demonstrably false:
Quote:
|
They didn't just drop those charges because of who Gates is.
|
... yet you've earlier argued that these charges would be dropped against a white person of similar stature. Hmm, interesting, and chock full o' bias and poor reasoning.
Quote:
|
They dropped them because they couldn't convict him. They didn't have enough.
|
... or it's more trouble than it's worth, or the city didn't feel like assigning multiple prosecutors to defend against a high-powered, expensive and very public legal team over a couple hundred bucks, or they wanted it out of the news cycle because they would have to defend the cop rather than prosecute the accused, or . . .
Quote:
|
Furthermore, they had a slight problem...the cop refused to give his identifying information to Gates. Legally he can't do that.
|
Aren't you in law school? This really may have very little bearing on the case - it may influence views on the officer's credibility, but if you know anything at all about witness credibility, you'd realize cops . . . have it. Implicitly. I'm not certain the "legal" ramifications of not giving your badge number include "throwing out the case" in this situation - are you?
Quote:
|
For what it is worth, Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. Dr. Gates was not causing public annoyance or alarm. He wasn't fighting or threatening. He wasn't violent. He did not create a hazardous or physically offensive condition. He was also not in public. The officer only arrested him once he stepped onto the porch. I don't think the porch qualifies as a public place.
|
Notice you left out "tumultuous" . . . is there a reason for that? Are you sure that a man yelling at a cop in his front yard causes no alarm?
Additionally, words can certainly escalate to the point where these definitions could be met. You're just saying "they didn't" without any real support is unconvincing.
Quote:
|
The responses to this incident are further evidence of why race relations in this country will remain somewhat stagnant. if every single time an incident happens, people blow it off, no one will ever take a stance against racial profiling or the bigotry of the police. and for the record, I'm not saying that anyone should believe that EVERY incident involves racism.
|
You're not "saying" that - you're "showing" that, in every thread. You've never taken anything but a contrarian stance against those who bring up anything to suggest an incident might not have the explicit racial overtones you give it.