Gates

I totally support your Actions Sgt. I am glad to see your agency back you. None of us should have to take the verbal abuse from anyone and once they have been put on notice to quiet down... then they should be arrested as you did. Once again great job.. I back you totally !

Mr.President.. should have never become involved in a local issue, especially when he did not have all the facts !

Ron Friedman
Retired Major
North Miami Beach Police Department

[quote=American Cop] on 07/28/09 22:18:31 So many of you state you support Sgt *******'s actions yet you haven't even considered whether or not he acted in accordance with established case law. As LEOs you should read or know the controlling law before you start supporting a rogue action by an individual with an inflated ego Commonwealth v. Mulvey, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 579 (2003 disorderly conduct case law). A link to the case law is below:

http://masscases.com/cases/app/57/57mas ... html#back5

By the reading of these posts I can understand that most of you do not care about what the law actually says but by what you believe it should be. Bad, bad, precedent to set for LEOs.[quote="American Cop":3p4tekey]

I must disagree with you on your assumption of that Sgt Gates acted outside of the established case law. You throw out 1000 dollar words in your posts, but do not consider all the facts in the case. You are Monday Morning quarterbacking an officer's decision and you were not there. Remember that Case law is just that, Case Law. Unless it is a final determination from the US Supreme Count, it is not final decision and the state level always changes. New cases are always brought up to challenge the older cases to make them more current to today's moral and ethical standards.

[quote="American Cop":3p4tekey] In response to Guest. I commend your efforts for engaging in an intelligent conversation commencing with your reading of the case law. You state the situations are vastly different but you do not state factual issues as to how they are different. In actuality the cases are similar in all relevant aspects: 1) the LEOs in MULVEY as well as ******* both had a legal basis for being at the private property agree2) the charge at issue is disorderly conduct in private property agree3) as in MULVEY's case there was no evidence (save hearsay A police report of a specific witness (Officer) is not hearsay as it is a sworn to document/affidavit so hearsay does not apply here by *******) that anyone was disturbed by GATES' conduct and 4) just as the judge commented in MULVEY, that the Sergeant could have just left the injunction There is that specific element that I mentioned that does not apply to this case as no investigation is being done for process service as there was for the possible burglary/trespass charge at the residence after identifying MULVEY so could ******* have left the scene Then this Sergeant could have been in trouble for "Not doing a through job of investigating the possible crime. Officers do not run from confrontation, but go to it. Sort of like a quote from a movie "Marines don't run from the sound of gunfire, they go towards it" after being satisfied that GATES was the homeowner. You are right here, however you are also wrong. Once Gates began his verbal bashing of the Sgt *******, he was still committed to doing his job. You must remember that Gates was the one who could have answered the questions and Sgt ******* would have been gone. Gates chose to be difficult and obstruct the officer and use racial claims instead of answering and providing the documentation requested Remember ******* stated twice in his report that he believed GATES was the homeowner even before ******* stepped inside the house. I respect your opinion on supporting ******* if you so choose but the case law my friend does not. I have read the case law many times before and it hasn't changed. This was an attitude arrest and most LEOs will fess up to it albeit not publicly. "Guest" what is at stake here is not an issue as to whether we like one party more than the other, rather the issue at hand is whether a LEO followed established case law or not. [quote="American Cop":3p4tekey]


See my response to your post in blue above. Police do not just follow case law, but they also follow State Law. If they followed Case Law like you do or claim to do then nothing would be done. Case law is on both sides of the bench and can and does go for all parties at any time. (See Suppression Hearing) As stated above case law unless it is from the US Supreme Court always changes. You can find 100 cases why something can not be done, and the other attorney can find 100 cases why it was justified. Case law is or can be specific in the elements that it addresses. That is why hearings are done and rulings are made base on that. From your reading of the case law proved by your summery of the incident, it states that the officer is there to serve a Process, that was not the case here. The officer was investigating a burglary or possible trespass. That in itself can lead to other case law.

You say that you cannot leave until the person can be positively identified as the homeowner. That's an interesting observation but it is not pragmatic in its application. In your comment you failed to show or explain the "criteria" to be applied in proving how a "homeowner can be positively identified" as the owner of a particular home. What would you do to someone who owns a rental unit and is coming to work on the property which the tenants abandoned? What if he doesn't have the deed to or an ID with the address of the residence in question? Will you take him to jail? What if it were a boarder staying for a few weeks until he completes a temporary duty assignment and his ID has an address different from the residence in question and he cannot get a hold of the landlord? What about a family member or friend taking care of the house because the owner or resident is traveling or in the hospital? Are you prepared to arrest that person too? Please don't be hasty. Should you arrest them you will lose the lawsuit and find yourself out of a job. Police are not omnipotent and they have been wrong before.

The incident report is not just an incident report, it is a compilation of Sgt *******'s investigatory observations at the scene. These observations carry just as much weight as his opinion as to whether or not GATES exhibited "tumultuous behavior". If his opinion of tumultuous behavior (not backed up by any evidence) is sufficient to deprive GATES of his liberty after he confirmed GATES was the homeowner, then his opinion about GATES being the homeowner (absent any evidence of a burglary) should have been sufficient to dispel his fear, thereby requiring him to "beat feet" not escalate the situation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/quote:3p4tekey][/quote:3p4tekey][/quote:3p4tekey][/quote:3p4tekey]

American Cop,

To summarize my responses to you I post this. We as Officers do not WHAT IF!!!. What if is way to close to ASSUME which breaks down to Ass-u-me. I have read your posts to this thread and I am truly amazed at your reaction. You do not come across as a cop but as a ACLU attorney or an attorney just out of law school and trying to make something out of your expensive Doctorate of Law Degree. You however do make valid defensive points, however I must say that most are misplaced.

As a fellow officer with more than 15 years doing the job and with a family tradition of Law Enforcement in this country, dating back to the 1940's in our Nations Capital (DC Metro), I do not understand how you would make your decision without, 1st you not being there on scene, 2nd knowing all the facts (We all know not all facts make it into a police report. That is why Depo's are done) of the case at the time and 3rd Officers are required to make split second decisions in this line of work. In Graham Vs Connor it specifically states that "that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions". Yes I know it is a use of force case, but they have recogonized that we do have to think fast and do not have the luxurious of having "West Law" at our finger tips and have time to over analize our decisions. Sgt ******* made a decision and did not flinch. Yes it was a minor charge, but it still fit and is a crime that was comitted in his presence and that of other Officers.

As being a cop and knowing the law like you do, it is the job of the Officers to establish probable cause for the arrest and that is it. It is not up to the Officers to win the case, but up to the Attorney's (DA or State) to win the case. From what I have learned from the news, No rehearing was ordered by the Judge who reviewed the Probable Cause Affidavit to find Probable Cause, because it was all right there. That in itself was the threshold that Sgt ******* had to meet and HE DID. It is up to the DA or State to decide if they wish to file or not. People are arrested all the time and charges are dropped all around this country for minor charges. This case is not exception but the norm. As being a cop as you claim you would know this. However the media never pick that little bit of info up.

What this case is/was is a Officer called to a house like many of us are on a daily basis for a possible criminal investigation. The homeowner being a black man. The officer not seeing the color, but seeing a possible suspect/criminal and doing an investigation to determine what he had. The suspect/homeowner giving the Officer a bunch of lip and obstructing his investigation. The suspect/homeowner not being compliant and escalating the situation by his verbal tirades, and the Officer making a split second decision to effect an arrest. Then the suspect/homeowner playing the racial card, on top of that being a Harvard Professor with being a historian of Black heritage with access to the POTUS. This got way our of hand over a stupid misdemeanor charge that more often then not gets dropped.

I do have one question for you Mr American Cop, If this was a poor black male from the getto/projects somewhere in America, who did the same thing would you have though the same at this or worked soo hard in defending him? Would the press have jumped all over the story? I say no to all! OH wait I have 1 more question, If this was a white College Professor from Harvard who acted the same as gates did, would Sgt ******* have arrested him? I bet he would have. It would not have mattered to him the color of the suspect, but of the criminal act he had in front of him and the laws that were violated.

What this was was Gates playing the race card that did not need to be played. He caused this incident and he could have prevented it. There is a reason that the race card is still played today. It is because people hide behind it and the media also fixates on it to make it an issue or to make the issue more than what it is to sell either air time or papers. We should never look at people as to what color they have, but what can they accomplish and what can they contribute to this great country. We as professional Officers do not look at people and judge them by color, we as Professional Officers judge people by their ACTIONS.

On that note, Sgt ******* good job in doing what was right at the time. Honor is doing this right thing all the time, even when no one else is looking. Sgt ******* you did the right thing and I SALUTE YOU for not backing down.

ps. I am sorry for the long post, I just could not sit here and read all that without posting corrections. Oh and it felt good too

Spit your beer in that socialists face and leave the meeting immediately. You don't need to be associated with those two racists. :devil:

I am not usually one to become offended by the comments of politicians, even liberal democrats. But I do not think that the President could have offended me more with his racist and narrow minded response to a situation he had no firsthand knowledge of. Furthermore it was even more disturbing to me that the President of the United States took time to speak publicly about a local event that carried no significance to the country as a whole. I believe that the President damaged the relationship between the police and the public even more based on racist views towards white officers. And likewise the media has turned a simple arrest for disorderly conduct into a snowball media circus. The fact that your area's district attorney dropped the charge, I believe, fuels the fire for minorities to disregard law enforcement officers. Hopefully this will all be corrected in 2012 when Republicans retake the reigns. And, if it were me, I would have declined to meet with the President. All officers know that what he said to begin with was as close to the truth as he will ever come again. You cannot un-ring the bell.

Good job Sarge, I would've done the same thing. I however, wouldn't drink a beer w/either one of those two knuckleheads if ordered to by my sheriff. It's probably to late, but print out these three pages, make two copies and give it to Gates and POTUS.

To South West Florida Deputy--

I don't quite understand how you can argue that American Cop should not make judgements against Sgt. *******'s arrest because American Cop was not there and therefore doesn't have all the facts, while you support the validity of the arrest while you were also not present. You, too, cannot have the aforementioned cake.

To South West Florida Deputy--

I don't quite understand how you can argue that American Cop should not make judgments against Sgt. *******'s arrest because American Cop was not there and therefore doesn't have all the facts, while you support the validity of the arrest while you were also not present. You, too, cannot have the aforementioned cake.

You are right, I was not there, that is why I am supporting his decision that he made on scene. Weather the case was valid or not, I am not trying to dispute. What I do see is that the threshold was met of Probable Cause. I would take the experience of a Sergeant on scene along with his knowledge to make the right call. And from what I have seen of him in the news, he makes a good first impression. What I am doing is backing up an officer.

To South West Florida Deputy--

I don't quite understand how you can argue that American Cop should not make judgments against Sgt. *******'s arrest because American Cop was not there and therefore doesn't have all the facts, while you support the validity of the arrest while you were also not present. You, too, cannot have the aforementioned cake.

You are right, I was not there, that is why I am supporting his decision that he made on scene. Weather the case was valid or not, I am not trying to dispute. What I do see is that the threshold was met of Probable Cause. I would take the experience of a Sergeant on scene along with his knowledge to make the right call. And from what I have seen of him in the news, he makes a good first impression. What I am doing is backing up an officer.

It's fine to back up a fellow officer, but if you decide to side with ******* as a brother/sister without having been at the scene yourself, I don't think you can impugn another's arguement on the basis of not having been there. Your other assertions about American Cop's statement may be valid, but you can't fault his/her arguement without destroying your own if you insist that he/she can't have an opinion without having been there. I don't find anything wrong with contesting AC's conclusions, but I think too many posters accuse others with differing opinions of "not knowing all the facts 'cause they weren't there" and then asserting their own opinions without having been present. Hearing "You weren't there so you don't know," then "I think blah blah blah..." is way too common on these boards. None of us were there, so if we followed that standard, none of us would be able to have an opinion.

I cant believe this has been turned into a race issue!!!!!!What a joke! Can I retract my vote for Obama?

Miami Dade Cop you should have thought about that before you cast your ballot. There was plenty of evidence of his views. 20 yrs in J. Wright's church, his relationship with Bill Ayres, etc. It was all laid out before the election. Now he's showing his true colors. He;s anti cop and anti military!! :devil: