It was Sgt. Crowley who BROKE the law and he did it very soon after he arrived...

[Spazito]

on scene. He did NOT provide his identification card as REQUIRED BY LAW when it was requested by Dr. Gates. Here is the law Sgt. Crowley broke:

POLICE OFFICERS


Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards


Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

Link to Chapter 41: Sction 98D:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm

Dr. Gates requested that identification BEFORE Sgt. Crowley even entered the home and Sgt. Crowley did NOT produce his card. Every subsequent request by Dr. Gates to Sgt. Crowley for his identification was ignored as shown in Sgt. Crowley's OWN report:



"He then demanded to know who I was. I told him I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence."

This is where Sgt. Crowley was, by law, required to provide his identification card and he did not.

Again, from Sgt. Crowley's report:

"I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at (blacked out address number in report) Ware St. and so I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."

Second request for identification ignored by Sgt. Crowley.

Yet again, from Sgt. Crowley's police report:

"As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Dr. Gates again demanding my name. I again told him I would speak with him outside."

Third request from Dr. Gates, third time Sgt. Crowley refused to follow the State law.


Link to Sgt. Crowley's report:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF

[cboy4]

1. Nah. As critical as I've been about how the cops handled this .. I think it's

silly to argue a cop (especially one in uniform), should be required to whip out an ID card during exigent circumstances .. those being the investigation of a potential felony in progress.

Not to mention, I doubt the code you cite is applicable in that instance (during a potential burglary in progress).

Afterwards and you want to see the officer's ID? Fine.

Before? I fiercely disagree, unless you can articulate for some reason you have strong doubts the person in the police uniform is actually a police officer.

I don't believe that was the case here.

TYPO

[Spazito]

2. It is State law...

it is as simple as that. Sgt. Crowley is required to show his identity card upon request. The law is explicit not implicit. Sgt. Crowley is not above the law and, as such, was required to follow the law. He did not.

Edited to add:

Sgt. Crowley still did NOT produce his identity card upon request AFTER he had ascertained Dr. Gates was the legal occupant of the home. It is in Sgt. Crowley's own report.

[cboy4]

4. It is also law to have to produce a search warrant before entering a house.

Right?

But that is completely waived if there are exigent circumstances, such as a cop is chasing after a killer and that killer runs into a house.

The cop has the right to follow the killer into that house.

Someone at the door cannot tell the cop, "ummm, I'm sorry, (A) you need a search warrant and (B) can I see your photo ID? :rofl:

Come on now.

We don't need to embellish the law to show that the Cambridge officer acted inappropriately.

[TankLV]

5. Boy - what utter and complete BULLSHIT you've posted here...

making EXCUSES for the INEXCUSABLE - again...

the PIG broke the LAW - plain and simple.

this was not in any way shape or form "exigent circumstances"

it was "living while being BLACK" pure and simple - starting with that RACIST neighbor who reported it EVEN THO GATES LIVED THERE FOR YEARS!!!

[cboy4]

9. You need to do a search on how critical I've been of this asshole cop.

I'm responding to the notion that cops -- in the middle of investigating a crime in progress -- are mandated to stop and display identification.

I'm arguing that particular Massachusetts law is being misinterpreted.

[Th1onein]

42. You are forgetting something.....Gates asked him for his ID AFTER the cop had

seen Gates' ID showing that he lived at that address. AFTER he knew that there was no crime in progress. So, your argument that Crowley didn't have to show his ID because of exigent circumstances is bullshit. Gates' asked him three times to show his ID, and even after the cop knew that there was no crime, he ignored the request. THAT'S against Mass State law, no matter how you toss it.

[cboy4]

50. Read every single thread post before you lecture me, because I'm

tired of explaining this to everyone.

I already said the cop should have produced ID after it was determined the call was unfounded and stable.

Apology accepted Th1onein.

[Th1onein]

57. I read them all. Bzzzt! You lose!

Hahahaha! Apology accepted, cboy4!

(Maybe you need to read them over again, yourself)

[mountains539]

85. did you see the ID?

just wondering if you saw his Harvard ID? If its true that he produced his Harvard ID then that is not proof that he lived there. Harvard ID's do not have your address on them so this did not show that Gates lived at that address if that was indeed that ID that he produced. Its assumptions like this that blow things up and make it difficult to make opinions that are rooted in fact.

[Bumblebee]

14. don't call cops pigs, please -- this is really no better than racial slurs

you may disagree with what he did but this is a regrettable tone -- and in capitals too -- to express it.

[Raineyb]

27. Calling cops pigs is NOT on par with racial slurs

That's straight bullshit.

[MajorChode]

84. It's the same mentality...

and just another flavor of bigotry.

Even if you could make the case that it's not as low brow as a racial slur, the very best you can say about it is it's prejudicial, an appeal to emotion, and a distraction from any discussion remotely involving race.

[joey5150]

118. a x^2+b x+c = 0

maybe more like ITG. y'kno - Internet Tough.....

[Cha]

45. Not a "racial slur" but

it's bigoted and most cops are trying to live by their code..Serve and Protect.

[MADem]

96. I am in the "Crowley went over the line" club, but the passer by (who did not know Gates)

was simply worried about a large guy (the driver) shoving at the jammed door. It was midday and the porch was covered and in full shadow, as well.

Even Gates isn't pissed at her, so there's no need to be dragging her into this like she did something wrong. She may be useful to Gates, because she not only called in the report, but she stayed on the sidewalk for the entire time and saw everything there was to see from the sidewalk, anyway.

[MajorChode]

101. As far as I know, we have yet to hear from her

The interesting part is, since many have already sewn the seed of a racism charge against her, if her story doesn't support Gates, I have little doubt the same people making those allegations will just say it's more racism regardless if there's any basis for that charge or not.

The woman saw someone heave in the front door. Anyone north of a room temperature IQ that is actually a responsible person is going to call the police regardless of their color.

[Spazito]

7. So, if I understand you correctly...

An officer of the law can choose which laws they will follow and which one's they can just shrug off? The law is clear, is it not? Had Sgt. Crowley produced his identification when first requested would the incident still have continued to escalate to the point of arresting Dr. Gates? I suggest not as it was because of Sgt. Crowley's decision NOT to produce his identification card and Dr. Gates continued insistence that he do so that resulted in Dr. Gates following him out the door of the home and onto the porch, according to Sgt. Crowley's own report.

[cboy4]

12. I have no interest in arguing with you about how this call was handled,

because I'm already on record as saying I completely support Professor Gates.

What I'm telling you is no nit wit lawmakers would sign off on a bill that states a cop has to stop during a crime in progress and produce photo ID.....especially if they're in uniform.

I guarantee you that your silly identification argument, will be going nowhere, and I mean nowhere.

[Spazito]

16. I have read your posts, I know you have been very critical of the police actions...

in this incident. The actions of Sgt. Crowley in NOT providing his identification when requested, not merely once but multiple times, is a pertinent fact and, ironically, the issue of identification and the multiple requests by Dr. Gates is one that both Sgt. Crowley and Dr. Gates, in their separate telling of the incident, is highlighted by both.

Edited to add:

My reason for the OP was not for it to go "anywhere", it was to point out a fact that has, until now, been unknown by many and ignored by some while the issue of identification was a key component in the incident. If we are going to discuss the incident, it is best to try and have, in hand, what facts do exist surrounding the incident. The legal requirement to produce the identification card by police officers is one of those facts.

[marshall]

24. The idea that police should stop in the midst of a crime is cartoonish

It reminds me of the vintage cartoons (since current cartoons avoid violdence) where two characters are beating the crap out of each other, then they stop in midair for a few seconds and exchange pleasantries or something, then they immediately get back to figthing.

But I'm sure many a criminal has used the "you must show me your ID now!" to give accomplices time to flush evidence, climb out windows, or finish killing somebody.

[Spazito]

28. The law exists, Sgt. Crowley did not follow it...

You might well think the law, as it exists, is "cartoonish", ridiculous, add any adjective you wish to describe what you think about the law but it does NOT negate the law or the requirement to follow it. Sgt. Crowley did NOT follow the law.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

38. Personal attacks really don't help your argument...

and, usually, reduces one's credibility on the issue because it brings to light the poster can no longer debate the issue and reverts to attacking the messenger.

Back to the issue:

Did or did not Sgt. Crowley break the law when he did not produce his identification card upon a lawful request?

[cboy4]

46. You've yet to prove to me that you comprehend what lawful request means.

And you just asked an open-ended question.

Are you asking me if Sgt. Crowley broke the law "when he did not produce his identification card upon lawful request?" before the officer made contact or after the officer made contact.

I've already explained to you he did nothing wrong at the beginning, and I already explained to you that he should have produced his ID upon demand after the call was determined stable and unfounded.

What more do you want from me?

[Spazito]

52. I see you do agree he broke the law, where you and I have a difference is in when, not if,...

he did so, correct. I am surmising your agreement based on this taken from your post:

"...he should have produced his ID upon demand after the call was determined stable and unfounded."

[marshall]

65. You did read the qualification within that section?

"...and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification...."

If you read the main section 98 that lists the duties of a police officer it spells out:

"They may examine all persons abroad whom they have reason to suspect of unlawful design, and may demand of them their business abroad and whither they are going; may disperse any assembly of three or more persons, and may enter any building to suppress a riot or breach of peace therein. Persons so suspected who do not give a satisfactory account of themselves, persons so assembled and who do not disperse when ordered, and persons making, aiding and abetting in a riot or disturbance may be arrested by the police, and may thereafter be safely kept by imprisonment or otherwise unless released in the manner provided by law, and taken before a district court to be examined and prosecuted."

Arguably Gates's request wasn't considered lawful by Crowley (and the other witnesses including officers and neighbors) and presumably fell within the exception of the law you cite.

It's all "nuance" as the law often is--but I think it's worth noting that Gates himself appears to be backing away from his earlier strong statements (probably in light of Obama's pseudo mea culpa) and we likely will not hear more until and if the powers that be see fit to release the tapes.

[Spazito]

72. There is nothing in the statement you posted with regard to the duties of...

a police officer provides an exception to Section 98D. It actually adds to the duties as specified in Section 98 and clarifies the requirement to carry and produce their identification upon a lawful request.

[marshall]

80. The crux of the argument is the meaning of the word "lawful"

The description of the duties in my opinion help define that. My interpretation is that a request for ID can't be considered lawful if it is rendered during the commission of a felony, or the suspicion of such. Initially the suspicion was that Gates was a burglar, bolstered by a neighbor's call for police action. At that point the onus was on Gates to establish his identity BEFORE requiring the officer to produce his ID. Can you imagine what law enforcement would be like in Massachusetts if every crook could stop an officer in his or her tracks? It's the same reason there is an exception to the requirement for a search warrant.

It is arguable what proceeded after Gates was established as the occupant. I think Gates's backing down is indicative of him cooling off, probably talking to neighbors who were witnesses, and realizing the true facts.

[Spazito]

90. Subsection 98F , by the very fact it is an addendem to the main...

Section 98, which you posted with regard to the duties of an officer, is an additional requirement. In the main section, there is NO mention at all of the need to provide an identification card or, indeed, any identification at all which is why it was subsequently added as a subsection to Section 98.

Edited to add clarity.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

61. There was no crime

[geek_sabre]

83. If you really believe Gates would have calmed down after seeing the cop's ID

you're naive.

[Fumesucker]

8. Once Crowley had seen Gates ID, he was required by law to show his own ID..

Since Gates had requested to see Crowley's ID.

According to Crowley's own police report he did not do so.

Hence he broke the law.

Edited for clarity.

[cboy4]

15. Of course. I agree, but that's not what the OP is arguing.....the OP is

arguing the cop was mandated to show ID immediately ... right there in the middle of a reported felony call in progress.

From the OP:

"Dr. Gates requested that identification BEFORE Sgt. Crowley even entered the home"

[WillieW]

13. He lured the man outside by claiming that the acoustics in the

house where bad.

[Alcibiades]

25. Absolutely right

That's what I thought when I read the report: Crowley knew the arrest would never fly, but knew that if Gates followed him outside, he could arrest him on the catchall charge "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." Cops don't like it when you question their authority, but then, neither do college professors.

[MADem]

98. Ha--good point!

Cops don't like it when you question their authority, but then, neither do college professors.

[Statistical]

43. The law is never simple.

So if while chasing a robbery suspect through a backyard of a 3rd party the 3rd party asked the officer for ID would the officer be required to stop pursuit of a criminal to provide ID? Should he be reuired to wait while said person slowly writes the info down?

At the time the officer arrived on the scene it was a possible crime in progress. Until Gates properly identified himself the officer was acting under the reasonable suspicion that the person in the house was the burglary suspect identified in the call to the Police.

Once Gates confirmed his identity the officer should provide ID.

[Spazito]

47. Sgt. Crowley did NOT produce his identification card even AFTER..

he had ascertained that Dr. Gates was the legal occupant of the home. At NO time, even after repeated requests from Dr. Gates, did Sgt. Crowley provide, as he was required by law to do, his identification card.

The law under discussion is quite clear:

POLICE OFFICERS


Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards


Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

[cboy4]

53. Why don't you read?

Statistical just fricken said:

Once Gates confirmed his identity the officer should provide ID.

You are seriously embarrassing yourself.

[Spazito]

56. I did read and responded accordingly on another of your posts on this point n/t

[Hutzpa]

51. I beg to differ

the law is always 'cut and dry' it's the INTERPRETATION wherein lies the problem.

Since us human are from different background, our interpretation of the law can be somewhat
bias, but if we stay within the confines of the law it is 'cut and dry' There is no grey
areas when it comes to the law, yes, people can try and bend the law, but you cannot break
the law.

[Statistical]

77. I never said the law isn't cut and dry. I said it isn't easy.

One can't look at a single statute and say the "know the law".

One would need to look at ALL the statutes plus all the relevant court cases which set the boundaries of the statute.

Unless you do all that (which isn't easy even with relational law databases) you don't have the whole picture.

So yes good laws are cut and dry but that doesn't make determining the extent of a law easy.

[merh]

3. LOL, so Crowley gets to disobey state law while he is

investigating the alleged violation of state law and while he is charging Gates with violating state law?

Nah, cops have to obey the law too, they actually take an oath to do so.

[cboy4]

6. I suggest taking .. at the very least .. an introductory law course at your local

community college so you have a basic understanding of police practices from a legal standpoint.

And in particular, exigent circumstances.
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

[Spazito]

10. The law says nothing about "unless there is exigent circumstances"...

when it comes to producing the identification card:

POLICE OFFICERS


Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards


Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

[cboy4]

18. It's implied vis-a-vis the fourth amendment warrant exemption(s)

Since you claim to know this statute so well, define this clause:

"...shall be exhibited upon lawful request..."

Tell me what that means Spazito.

I'll wait.

[merh]

20. No, the burden is on you to prove it was not a lawful request.

Prove that the request was not lawful and answer why it was ignored not one time, but 3 times as admitted by Crowley as memorialized in his report.

[merh]

11. I would suggest you take that introductory course.

No one said that there was no probable cause to enter Gate's home and that Crowley needed a warrant. He was required under Massachusetts law to provide his identification card and he refused to do so on at least 3 occasions (possibly four times), as he admits in his report.

Keep in mind, Gates was not arrested for breaking and entering, resisting arrest or any like crime. Had Crowley suspected he was the law breaker when Gates asked for his ID, he would have just gone in and arrested him.

You really, really don't want to go the legal route, you will not win.

Edited to add: You may want to read this post before you continue down this route.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6150586&mesg_id=6153141

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nini]

33. there was no imminent danger excusing not showing his ID when it was requested

Using your logic citizens should submit to anyone in uniform. God knows no one has ever impersonated a cop to commit a crime! :eyes:

[cboy4]

37. Sorry, but imminent danger is not a legal factor .. forcing a cop

to produce ID during the middle of a hot call.

Your post is full of a straw, and any court would throw it out if you actually represented yourself as a lawyer and used such baloney at part of a motion.

[nini]

82. sorry.. but the call wouldn't have gotten so HOT if the officer would have done so

His actions are indeed flawed, led to the escalation of the situation, and it is not baloney. This coming from the daughter of an LAPD homicide detective who defends officers more than not.

The law in Massachusetts requires officers to show ID when asked. He did not do this so I suggest YOU get familiar with the LAW in this case.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm


PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

POLICE OFFICERS

Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards

Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

[Spazito]

117. Thanks, nini, I appreciate your post on this in terms of the law I used in my OP...

I, too, believe the call would not have escalated to the point it did, that being the arrest of Dr. Gates, had Sgt. Crowley provided his identification card upon Dr. Gates' lawful request to do so.

[freeplessinseattle]

66. until it happens to you n/t

[Lorien]

111. I usually agree with you, but not here

impersonation of a police officer is not as rare as you might think. We've had some real problems with that down here in Florida (fake cops pulling women over and raping them). In most States officers MUST produce ID if they are asked for it. If they don't, there may be a good reason to be seriously concerned.

[MajorChode]

17. The case here is weak at best

Point 1:
The "law" in question falls under the administrative code of the state of Massachusetts, not the criminal code. So even if you could make a case that Crowley broke this "law" (and I'm not conceding he did), the punishment could only be administrative in nature if anything at all. It's not even in the same ballpark as a charge of violating a criminal code, which puts it somewhere well under a parking ticket and perhaps a little above penciling a limerick on the PD shithouse stall. At any rate it's about as relevant to the Gates discussion as a fart in a whirlwind.

Point 2:
Sgt. Crowley's report never says he DIDN'T provide the ID as asked. He may well have provided his ID which prompted Gates to provide his. Or maybe he didn't. Either way is pure speculation as the available information does not allow for an absolute determination of whether he did or didn't.

Point 3:
The statute clearly says "shall be exhibited upon lawful request" (emphasis added). I'm not entirely sure what lawful request means. I suspect that if an officer was in a shootout with a suspect and the suspect demanded to see the officers ID, I'm kinda thinking that may not make the cut as a "lawful request". Whether it does so in this instance, I have no idea.

[merh]

19. Believe me, had Crowley shown his identification card, it would be

in his report.

And the law is the law, whether it be administrative (as in how a government official should conduct themselves) or a criminal, it still has force.

[MajorChode]

26. Just how can you possibly know that?

Are you an expert on police report writing?

We're talking about a charge punishable by a $40 fine, not a capital murder charge. I seriously doubt Sgt. Crowley felt compelled to include every minutia of detail you demand, especially on something that had absolutely nothing to do with whether Gates committed a crime or not.

So the reality is you DON'T know, no matter how much you pretend to know.

And not all laws are equal in nature. Administrative laws aren't even in the same ballpark as criminal statutes. This entire debate is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. It's a red herring that offers absolutely no value to any sort of meaningful discussion on the Gates incident no matter what your opinions on the subject are.

[merh]

36. One doesn't have to be an expert in police report writing to know that

Crowley said in his report he gave Gates his name twice but refused to give it to him a third time. Had he given his card, he would have said, "I provided him with my ID card." Gates was trying to cover his ass in the report, that is obvious as he refers to the 7 passers-by that looked in Gates direction (he needed others to satisfy an element of the crime he did charge Gates with).

Violating the law is violating the law, whether it be a $40 fine or a million dollar fine, the police have to follow the law, they took an oath to do so. I would bet you that Cambridge PD's policy and procedures require they provide ID.

Here, read this in answer to your questions. I grow weary of repeating myself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6150586&mesg_id=6152251

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6150586&mesg_id=6152508

[MajorChode]

41. Again more speculation, no relevant facts

You're repeating yourself because you have nothing factual to offer.

[merh]

49. On the contrary.

I do have the facts as contained in Crowley's report.

You on the other hand are making arguments that have no basis in fact or law. You are now disputed my posts by projecting your own failures onto them.

Here is the report, deal with the facts. There is no reference to Crowley's identification card. That is a fact.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MajorChode]

63. No, you're trying to pass off a non-fact as a fact

And I sent up the bullshit flag.

Your argument is that because Sgt. Crowley never explicitly stated he DID show his ID, he must NOT have shown his ID. That's NOT a fact and it never will be a fact no matter how many times you want to pretend it is and feign victimization of a personal attack. It's fallacious logic every day of the week and twice on Sunday (or in your case more than twice on Sunday).

Knowledge of debate is a wonderful thing. See argumentum ad ignorantiam. I even provided the link for you. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm describing your fallacious logic. Try actually clicking the link and figuring it out what it means.

Cheers.

[merh]

70. The report reflects Gates gave his name and then gave his ID card.

The report reflects that Crowley gave his name.

Thus, the facts as found in the report support that Crowley did not provide his identification card as required by law.

It is you that is trying to pass off non-fact as fact. You are dealing in supposition. You may want to read your own link.

[MajorChode]

74. Argumentum ad nauseam

You can repeat the same false claim as many times as you like. It never makes it any more true than the first time, although in some instances it can make for a good drinking game.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam

Cheers.

[merh]

76. You have yet to refute the facts.

Go read the report.

LOL, you really should read your link.

[MajorChode]

79. "facts" that don't exist generally are quite difficult to refute

Fortunately I live in the world most call reality.

You failed out of the starting blocks.

Better luck next time.

Cheers.

[merh]

86. You have to understand the purpose of the police report.

He is memorializing what he did. Since he didn't give his ID card, he couldn't write in his report he did. Since he gave his name, twice (while refusing the 3rd time), he memorialized the fact in his report.

You have yet to refute the facts of the report.

[MajorChode]

91. I don't "have to understand" what you think is it's purpose

The purpose of a police report is to provide a written account supporting the charge against a suspect.

You're pretending the purpose of a police report is to provide a written account supporting an imaginary charge against the police.

You are exactly correct. I don't understand what you think a police report is, nor do I really care to do so.

Nice redirection, but I'm not biting on that one either.

Try again.

Edit: fixed typo

[merh]

94. The purpose of the report is to record the incident and to memorialize

the facts.

Crowley knew Gates was on the phone with the Chief's office (as reflected in his report), he knew he had to record all pertinent facts so, had he provided his ID card or given Gates his business card, he would have recorded that fact.

You try again.

[MajorChode]

97. Ah yes! The key word here is "pertinent"

Whether Sgt. Crowley showed his ID or not is not "pertinent" to the charge against Prof Gates.

And still you haven't provided the quote that says, "When Gates asked me for my ID, I told him to go piss up a rope."

Forest/trees.

Oooops. You lose again.

I'm kinda thinking you're in Hoboken with your goalposts about right now and making a mad dash toward the Florida coast. I'm not sure how much farther I'm going to follow, but it has been quite amusing so far.

[merh]

100. It is pertinent to the case. Crowley knew that Gates was complaining

to the Chief's office about him, he knew that Gates was saying "I don't know his name, what's your name".

It is pertinent to the specific case at hand and Crowley, the Cambridge PD's trainer in how to avoid racial profiling and how to handle complaints of racism, had a higher duty than just the average patrol cop. He had a higher duty and he was aware of the charges being leveled against him, thus how and/or if he complied with procedure and law when conducting his investigation was pertinent.

I've moved no goal posts, you just haven't made it anywhere near the goal and each set back appears to cause you frustration.

[MajorChode]

102. You win!

When it comes to sheer volume of absurdity, nobody can match your finesse for the irrelevant and unreasonable.

Now you want to make all sorts of speculation as to what was in the mind of Sgt. Crowley, just like you pretended what "facts" were contained in his report.

Your strawman is now burned to a crisp and the embers have died out. Pardon me, but I'm not going to stay around while you build another one, but by all means don't stop on my account. There's not a dry eye in the house.

Have a nice day!

[merh]

103. I've based my argument on Crowley's report and the facts and the absense

of pertinent facts as reflected in his report.

I've built no strawman, you do so as you respond without facts and with allegations of bonfires and strawman.

Darn shame you can't find any facts that support your claim. Not surprising, but a darned shame for you.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

110. Does the US Flag Code work what way?

[Spazito]

21. The case is quite simple, actually...

Did Sgt. Crowley produce his identification card, the card he is required to carry and show when his identification is requested? No he did not, even after repeated requests from Dr. Gates. Sgt. Crowley states quite clearly in his report he verbally identified himself at least twice, at NO time in his report does he state he provided his identification card as required by law. Identifying himself verbally does NOT meet the requirement in any way.

You stated in your post:

The "law" in question falls under the administrative code of the state of Massachusetts, not the criminal code. So even if you could make a case that Crowley broke this "law" (and I'm not conceding he did), the punishment could only be administrative in nature if anything at all."

If I understand your point here, you are saying it is quite appropriate for an officer of the law to break the law because it is administrative and not criminal? Really?

Whether the law broken is administrative or other is superfluous to the discussion. My OP simply states Sgt. Crowley broke his own State's law under Chapter 41: Section 91D. In not producing his identification card upon request, did he not break the law I have cited?

[MajorChode]

35. You're simply trying to pass off speculation as fact

Even if you go by Gates' own statements, he made two separate requests. One was to see the ID of the officer, and another was for his name and badge number. The police account says Gates only asked for name (and not badge number) after the ID request was made, and was provided that information. So why would the police officer provide his name upon request (twice) and NOT provide his ID when requested earlier? Not only is your speculation a non-fact, it defies reason.

And no, you have no idea what my point is, even though they were spelled out clearly in the Queen's English. I'm not saying it's "appropriate" for anyone to break any law. I'm saying for the purpose of any meaningful discussion regarding the Gates incident, the law in question is meaningless, irrelevant, and a red herring. I try very hard not to put words in other people's mouth and I'll thank you not to do the same.

So to answer your question regarding whether he broke the "law", you are no closer to proving he did, and even if you were, what you have amounts to a bucket of warm spit.

[Spazito]

44. "The law in question is meaningless, irrelevant and a red herring"

Yet you say "I'm not saying it's "appropriate" for anyone to break any law". Interesting.

Do you actually believe when one asks for an officer's name it is NOT a request for identification? Even if you do actually believe that, how do you explain this:

"I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at (blacked out address number in report) Ware St. and so I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."


Note Dr. Gates explicitly 'demanded' Sgt. Crowley show him identification yet Sgt. Crowley did not.

[MajorChode]

58. After failing in the original assertion, now you want to try to rope me into more irrelevancies

Sorry, I'm not going to play your game. Try someone else. Nobody is biting here.

[cboy4]

23. Yes. Lawful request means not telling an officer who has three suspected

bank robbers at gunpoint to stand down and show ID.

Lawful request means not asking an officer who is in foot pursuit with a suspected felon to stop and pull out his or her ID.

[glitch]

29. Straw man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

31. Did or did not Dr. Gates make a lawful request when...

as reported in Sgt. Crowley's own report:

"He then demanded to know who I was. I told him I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence."

"I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at (blacked out address number in report) Ware St. and so I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."

[MajorChode]

39. Here is why Sgt. Crowley wrote that statement

Failure to provide identification to a law enforcement officer on request is a crime in almost every jurisdiction in America. Assuming Massachusetts or the local jurisdiction does have such a law (which is a pretty good assumption), Sgt. Crowley could have arrested Gates on his initial refusal to provide his ID. Therefore the statement in question has absolutely nothing to do with whether Sgt. Crowley produced his ID or not and everything to do with whether Gates did.

[Spazito]

64. That does NOT answer why Sgt. Crowley did not produce HIS identification...

as required by law. Even after ascertaining Dr. Gates WAS the legal occupant of the home he continued to ignore the lawful request to produce his identification.

Again, from Sgt. Crowley's own report:

"While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence..."

The quote above occurs BEFORE Dr. Gates had even produced his own identification as shown by the following in Sgt. Crowley's statement which is a continuation of the above quote which I am separating to ensure clarity as to timing:

"...I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at (blacked out house number) Ware Street and so I could radio my findings to ECC."

[MajorChode]

71. I don't answer loaded questions

First establish that Sgt. Crowley actually didn't ever show his ID, then we'll have a question worth answering.

Plurium interrogationum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

You'll have to find someone else willing to fall for that trap.

[Spazito]

73. I would suggest to you the proof is in that Sgt. Crowley, at NO time, in his report,

stated he provided his identification card yet the issue of identification was included multiple times in Sgt. Crowley's report. He clearly states he told Dr. Gates his name yet did not state he provided his identity card.

[MajorChode]

78. I would suggest to you that you might want to bone up on what constitutes proof

The best you have is speculation.

Your failure is you can't differentiate between your opinion and fact. They are too different things which should never be confused inside of meaningful discourse.

[Spazito]

81. I provided the law as it stands, provided quotes from Sgt. Crowley's official..

police report. Those are not speculation. Those are not opinions. The opinions being stated are by you as to why Sgt. Crowley did not produce his identification and, along with that, the speculation he did produce the required identification and simply neglected to include it in his official police report.

[MajorChode]

89. Now you're just completely cornfused or pretending to be

My opinion was as to why Sgt. Crowley included details about identification in the first place, and why there was no need to include any details of if he did or did not produce his ID as requested. A police report includes information as to the charge of a suspect, not the police. What I'm saying is that it appears to me that Sgt. Crowley is saying, 'I could have arrested him right then and there on a failure to produce ID when lawfully requested by a LEO.' Go back and read it again. Ask clarification questions if you feel the need and I'll be glad to clarify or restate in a different manner for you.

Yes you did provide a copy of the statue. Yes you did provide factual information on what actually was in the report. No, you did not establish anything within a cab ride of the so-called fact you are claiming. Nowhere in Sgt. Crowley's report does it say 'I refused to provide my ID to Mr. Gates'. Wishing that were true does not make it true. Obfuscation does zip for your argument, but speaks volumes about your credibility.

[Spazito]

92. To state this....

"Nowhere in Sgt. Crowley's report does it say 'I refused to provide my ID to Mr. Gates'." in no way negates the fact that nowhere in Sgt. Crowley's official police statement does he state he DID produce it. What Sgt. Crowley clearly states is that he verbally identified himself, at least twice, which does not meet the requirements.

[MajorChode]

95. You're trying to amalgamate two different areas of the report

I've actually read the report, so that trick isn't going to work on me.

In paragraph #4 of Sgt. Crowley's report contains the first request for his name (only) which Sgt. Crowley says he provided. A few sentences later Sgt. Crowley asked for Gates' ID, and gates refused and asked for Sgt. Crowley's ID. There's no mention of whether Sgt. Crowley provided it or not.

In paragraph #5 and #6 there are repeated requests for Sgt. Crowley's name, and he states he has already provided it twice.

So still you want to obfuscate. Still you offer no proof of your assertion of fact.

You're like a dog chasing it's tail on this one. That's always fun to watch, at least for a while.

[Spazito]

99. Stating one's name does not meet the requirements as stipulated in

Chapter 41: Section 98F. You have provided no evidence he DID produce his identification card upon request. I believe it is you who offers no proof of your assertion (not even of fact) Sgt. Crowley's identification card was produced. You speculate it may have been but you have no proof of it's production. The only facts we have, based on Sgt. Crowley's own official police report, is that he verbally provided his name at least twice when Dr. Gates made his requests.


Edited to take out a roving letter 'j' from my post.

[MajorChode]

108. It's not MY assertion

Nice reversal, but let's not forget this isn't my assertion. This is your assertion. Did you not start this thread? Are you not the one saying it's a "fact" that Sgt. Crowley didn't produce his ID?

Let's not loose sight of the ball here. Remember: focus, breathe, concentrate. In through the nose, out through the mouth. Get that oxygen up to those brain cells.

Your assertions are not my responsibility. Nor do I want them. Nor do I feel any obligation to prove or disprove them. I can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either. That doesn't mean he does. It's pretty hard to prove a negative. Damn hard. Most would say impossible.

You can either support your assertions, or you can't. It's not my fault you can't. Don't forget that.

You now pretending that this is MY assertion is just a bit farther off the deep end than I care to go for now. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word as such things are of no interest to me.

Have a nice day.

[Spazito]

112. You are incorrect, I made no assertion, I provided the law as it exists...

and quotes from Sgt. Crowley's own official police report stating Dr. Gates requested, as is his legal right to do, Sgt. Crowley's identification and, at no time, according to Sgt. Crowley's own report, does he state he provided Dr. Gates with his identification card as was required by law.

[cboy4]

40. This has nothing to do with your initial argument that the cop should have

stopped during the middle of a reported felony burglary in progress, and produced identification.

You're moving the goalposts.

[Spazito]

54. The law is clear, Dr. Gates made a lawful request for identification...

Sgt. Crowley did not produce it. There are no goalposts to move. The law is clear, a lawful request was made by Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley chose not to follow the law in this instance.

I have not moved the goalposts at all, I posted the law, showed where Sgt. Crowley did not follow the law. There are no goalposts to be moved.

[cboy4]

62. Yea, your goalposts are in a new zip code in fact. That's how far you've

moved them.

[Karenina]

67. The Mods did you SUCH a favour!

:silly::party::woohoo:

[Spazito]

68. I honestly don't understand your anger as it seems we agree with the salient point...

that Sgt, Crowley broke the law. The only difference between you and I is the question of 'when' not a question of 'if'. From the way the law is written, my OP contends he broke the law the first time he did not produce his identification while you, from what you have previously posted in this regard, believe he should have produced it after ascertaining Dr. Gates was legally in the residence.

Had Sgt. Crowley produced his identification, as required, AFTER he had ascertained Dr. Gates was legally in the home, I would not have posted an OP on it at all. It was the fact that AT NO TIME did Sgt. Crowley accede to the law that prompted me to post this OP.

I can't help but wonder if, had Sgt. Crowley acceded to the law when first requested to provide identification OR EVEN at any time during Dr. Gates subsequent requests, would this incident have been exacerbated to the point it did, that being Dr. Gates arrest? This is where I will opine that I believe it would not.

[Karenina]

115. And I believe you to be correct. That COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW

on Sgt. Jim Crowley's part would have IMMEDIATELY de-escalated the situation.

[Spazito]

120. Thanks, Karenina, I appreciate your post....

I do believe it would have de-escalated the situation as well especially after reading both Sgt. Crowley's report and Dr. Gates' position on the incident. In both accounts, the issue of Sgt. Crowley's identification was significant to both of them albeit from completely opposite points of view.

[undeterred]

48. I wonder if he'll ask Obama to step outside at the White House.

:hide:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Obama says he is an outstanding officer and invited him to the WH.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karenina]

107. Obama is both a diplomat and politician.

Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer... Obama says he is an outstanding officer...

And both are skilled in what's called "interpreter smoothing." :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Wednesdays]

75. ...

[cboy4]

109. In the OP's defense, I don't believe this false legal argument has been

presented yet.

[Spazito]

114. An argument you, in substance, agree with...

it seems. In a previous post, you stated this:

"Once Gates confirmed his identity the officer should provide ID."

Your contention seems to be, as I have pointed out previously in response to your posts, the question of "when" Sgt. Crowley broke the law rather than the question of "if" he did.

A point to note: The law states "...and SHALL be exhibited...". It does not state "should be exhibited".

[cboy4]

116. You're the only person I've ever heard advocate forcing the cops to

stop in the middle of a felony in progress to flash their ID (as if the uniform and patrol car sitting in front of the house isn't enough), instead of waiting a couple of seconds after the call is unfounded or stabilized.

I've already been fiercely critical of the Cambridge cops, and fiercely supportive of Professor Gates.

Unfortunately, there are radicals who just don't know when to give it a rest.

Or at the very least, learn some law.

[Spazito]

119. I advocated nothing, I posted the law as it exists...

I made no comment as whether I thought the law, as written, should or should not exist. It is clear the State of Massachusetts believed strongly enough that the law should exist in that they added it to Section 98 in the form of the addendum D and ensured, by using "shall" rather than "should" that there was no flexibility on the part of the officer to whom a lawful request is made.

Edited to further clarify.

[Gothmog]

87. Crowley violated Prof. Gates First Amendment rights

Crowley's arrrest of Prof. Gates was a violation of Prof. Gates First Amendment rights See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6137980 It does not matter what was said to Crowley by Prof. Gates, there was no disorderly conduct and the arrest was illegal

[Gothmog]

88. Here is a good article from Slate on this issue

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6134165 The law is clear here.

[Spazito]

93. Thanks, Gothmog, for this...

It was your original thread on this regarding Massachusetts law that brought my attention to the requirements.

[merh]

104. You may want to add this case to your your research.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6131705

Thank you for the links to your research, they are most informative and very helpful.

[cboy4]

113. Fortunately this is just a thread loaded with nutty information from a

discussion board .. and not a legal research or law office site.

Because this is scary.