Anger Has Its Place

[Parker]

I would think they would actually have to remove something from the property to be burglary otherwise it might just be trespassing if you didnt want them in your house or on your property and had asked them to leave.

LOL i got all this from my business law professor in college always told us little stuff that nobody actually knew about the law and what to do and not to do if we ever got in trouble, was a cool dude.

Trespassing tends to be, when you've told somebody not to be on your property, and they either remained on, or entered when told not . A person can enter a home w/o notice or being wanted and it can be construed as burglary, they don't have to take something, of course this is dependent on each state's laws.

For instance, in MD, a officer can respond to a Disturbance (loud stereo being played), knock on the door, the person can look out the window, officer tells them to turn it down, they can disobey, but the officer can not come in, unless invited, or a search warrant. Which probably could have been Gates' case...

*I'm am not a attorney

[OzmO]

what the law demands.

Were they with in the law to enter the house?  YES  based on probable cause

But he wasn't on a burglary call. He was on a "possible" break-in, and he did NOT consult the 911 caller.
There weren't two men who refused to identify themselves. There was one man, and he did id himself.

Doesn't matter.  How police approach any situation initially is based on the call.  Hence, they legitimately need to establish a crime isn't being committed.

But it wasn't a real burglary was it?

That wasn't found out until ID was establish, until then all bets are off.

This is not about what I would want police to do, this is about what the law states police can and cannot do,

they didn't break the law by entering his house becuase probable cause had already been establish.

...and an innocent man who objected to police overstepping their bounds,

No, a fool who acted a fool and now looks like a fool.


Again, you cite the law which wasn't broken here.  You claim there was no probable cause and your argument falls apart.

[tonymctones]

Trespassing tends to be, when you've told somebody not to be on your property, and they either remained on, or entered when told not . A person can enter a home w/o notice or being wanted and it can be construed as burglary, they don't have to take something, of course this is dependent on each state's laws.

For instance, in MD, a officer can respond to a Disturbance (loud stereo being played), knock on the door, the person can look out the window, officer tells them to turn it down, they can disobey, but the officer can not come in, unless invited, or a search warrant. Which probably could have been Gates' case...

*I'm am not a attorney

Ya i think in tx that probably would be breaking and entering instead of burglary but i understand what your saying. Its really interesting what things ppl dont know about that is technically lawfully inviting police into your house. LOL my business law professor always told us so when we had parties we knew somewhat not to do if the police ever showed up...worked very well too, saved us from getting a contributing to minors and instead just a host of other lesser charges...

[George Whorewell]

You cant enter someones home without a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances include hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, responding to an emergency ( such as a felony in progress) or when there is readily destructable evidence inside the home that will be destroyed by the time a warrant is obtained.

For morons like Jag who know absolutely nothing about law and like to post on this website while throwing out terms like "probable cause"and the "4th amendment", a word of advice; Dont form your opinions based on what someone on cable news said and what you, in your narrow minded fantasy world would like to believe.

The officer was responding to a felony in progress. He had probable cause from the outset-- He had a tip that someone matching Gates description was trying to gain entry into the home. Probable cause is not the issue here at all. All probable cause means is a good faith belief that "more likely than not" criminal activity is afoot. The cop had every right to ask for identification and Gates was supposed to lawfully comply with the officers request. Instead, Gates went apeshit, acted inappropriately and gave the officer more reason to believe criminal activity was going on.

The 4th amendment only protects people from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Based on the facts here, nothing the cop did was unreasonable. Quite the opposite. Gates was unreasonable, caused a scene and basically dared the cop to arrest him.

Hope this helps.

[dkf360]

You cant enter someones home without a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances include hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, responding to an emergency ( such as a felony in progress) or when there is readily destructable evidence inside the home that will be destroyed by the time a warrant is obtained.

For morons like Jag who know absolutely nothing about law and like to post on this website while throwing out terms like "probable cause"and the "4th amendment", a word of advice; Dont form your opinions based on what someone on cable news said and what you, in your narrow minded fantasy world would like to believe.

The officer was responding to a felony in progress. He had probable cause from the outset-- He had a tip that someone matching Gates description was trying to gain entry into the home. Probable cause is not the issue here at all. All probable cause means is a good faith belief that "more likely than not" criminal activity is afoot. The cop had every right to ask for identification and Gates was supposed to lawfully comply with the officers request. Instead, Gates went apeshit, acted inappropriately and gave the officer more reason to believe criminal activity was going on.

The 4th amendment only protects people from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Based on the facts here, nothing the cop did was unreasonable. Quite the opposite. Gates was unreasonable, caused a scene and basically dared the cop to arrest him.

Hope this helps.

It does seem like she's getting her information from a bias source. Here's another question, if what the cop did was deemed 'illegal'    , why wasn't he charged in this case?

[George Whorewell]

lol illegal?

What crime should he be charged with?

Cops cannot be sued or charged criminally while doing performing their duties in good faith. Basically that means unless they themselves are breaking the law or use excessive force etc, there is no "illegal" activity. They are immune from being sued or tried criminally absent some outrageous behavior. If that weren't the case, how many people would even become cops?

Making mistakes comes with the job, any job for that matter. I am not a big fan of the police by any stretch, but everyone needs to calm down with the misinformed rhetoric.

[dkf360]

lol illegal?

What crime should he be charged with?

Cops cannot be sued or charged criminally while doing performing their duties in good faith. Basically that means unless they themselves are breaking the law or use excessive force etc, there is no "illegal" activity. They are immune from being sued or tried criminally absent some outrageous behavior. If that weren't the case, how many people would even become cops?

Making mistakes comes with the job, any job for that matter. I am not a big fan of the police by any stretch, but everyone needs to calm down with the misinformed rhetoric.

I'm in agreement with you. Jag's whole premise is that what the cop did was 'illegal', thus the constant link to the judge Napilatano vid.  Without that, she doesn't even have an argument.

[George Whorewell]

I hear you- She doesn't have an argument period and usually never does. 

[24KT]

You cant enter someones home without a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances include hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, responding to an emergency ( such as a felony in progress) or when there is readily destructable evidence inside the home that will be destroyed by the time a warrant is obtained.

BINGO!

For morons like Jag who know absolutely nothing about law and like to post on this website while throwing out terms like "probable cause"and the "4th amendment", a word of advice; Dont form your opinions based on what someone on cable news said and what you, in your narrow minded fantasy world would like to believe.

But I'm not basing my opinion on what some guy on cable news says. I'm basing my opinion on my interpretation of the law. The fact that a judge commenting on cable news happens to be of the same opinion simply validates my own.

The officer was responding to a felony in progress. He had probable cause from the outset-- He had a tip that someone matching Gates description was trying to gain entry into the home. Probable cause is not the issue here at all. All probable cause means is a good faith belief that "more likely than not" criminal activity is afoot. The cop had every right to ask for identification and Gates was supposed to lawfully comply with the officers request. Instead, Gates went apeshit, acted inappropriately and gave the officer more reason to believe criminal activity was going on.

But the officer was not responding to a felony in progress, ...he was responding to a "possible" breakin. He also was not given a description that matched Gates at all. His dispatcher said "race unknown" ..."possible hispanic"
 

The 4th amendment only protects people from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Based on the facts here, nothing the cop did was unreasonable. Quite the opposite. Gates was unreasonable, caused a scene and basically dared the cop to arrest him.

Hope this helps.

After establishing Gates as the lawful occupant not doing anything illegal, after pissing an innocent man off in his own home, arresting him could be considered highly unreasonable.

[George Whorewell]

A break in is a burglary which is a felony in all 50 states. This was a break in into someones home, which increases the likelihood of physical danger to any occupant inside the home.

A break in- in progress means there is a felony in progress.

A felony in progress can be characterized as an exigent circumstance which doesn't require a warrant.

If the cop had taken it easy and someone had been killed or the suspects got away, what would you say then? That the cop was incompetent? More than likely because the alleged victim here was black, you would argue the cop was wrong in some way.

Would you really require police investigating felonies in progress to make sure they waited outside for a search warrant before entering someones home?

[24KT]

A break in is a burglary which is a felony in all 50 states. This was a break in into someones home, which increases the likelihood of physical danger to any occupant inside the home.

There was no break-in

A break in- in progress means there is a felony in progress.

But a suspected break-in means there may NOT be a break in taking place. That's why you gather facts.

A felony in progress can be characterized as an exigent circumstance which doesn't require a warrant.

But a suspected break-in cannot be considered exigent circumstances, and does require a warrant, ...especially in the absence of a witness to an actual crime.

If the cop had taken it easy and someone had been killed or the suspects got away, what would you say then? That the cop was incompetent? More than likely because the alleged victim here was black, you would argue the cop was wrong in some way.

Would you really require police investigating felonies in progress to make sure they waited outside for a search warrant before entering someones home?

I would expect the cop to talk to the 911 caller and find out what the heck is going on, and I would expect him to follow the law. Even if he didn't follow the law to a T... dot every 'i' or cross every 't', I'd probably not make an issue out it, ...however, ...were I to be arrested in my own home, even after establishing that I'm the lawful occupant, and no crime was in progress, ...that would piss me off to no end, ...and you better believe I would make a stink about it, as well as every i not dotted and every t not crossed. Crowley made a stupid arrest, and now he has to be accountable for all his actions, as well as what appears to be a falsified police report.

[OzmO]

There was no break-in

That had yet to be established.

But a suspected break-in means there may NOT be a break in taking place. That's why you gather facts.

And Gates was blocking that process.

But a suspected break-in cannot be considered exigent circumstances, and does require a warrant, ...especially in the absence of a witness to an actual crime

If Crowley violated the law he should be charge with a crime.  He did nothing but his job. 

[headhuntersix]

Jag, much like Obama, defends the indefensible. As usual.

[dkf360]

That had yet to be established.

And Gates was blocking that process.

If Crowley violated the law he should be charge with a crime.  He did nothing but his job. 

What more needs to be said?

[George Whorewell]

There is no use trying to explain this stuff to her. She has her head in the sand as usual.

It seems that when investigating a felony in progress, the police ought to take a hands off approach and "gather facts" without talking to anyone or doing anything.

Being a Monday morning quarterback is wonderful because you get to make arm chair judgements based on events which already took place.

[24KT]

That had yet to be established.

That's why you talk to the caller who was on the scene, and you make damned sure a crime is taking place.

And Gates was blocking that process.

Then one would assume "obstruction of justice charges would be more in order than disorderly conduct no?

If Crowley violated the law he should be charge with a crime.  He did nothing but his job. 

What he violated were Gates civil rights and the federal constitution.

[OzmO]

That's why you talk to the caller who was on the scene, and you make damned sure a crime is taking place.

Not when you have uncooperative suspects in front of you.

Then one would assume "obstruction of justice charges would be more in order than disorderly conduct no?

Perhaps.

What he violated were Gates civil rights and the federal constitution.

Not at all because of probable cause.  Without probable cuase under the way you interpret things, this country would be a high crime zone. 

[24KT]

There is no use trying to explain this stuff to her. She has her head in the sand as usual.

It seems that when investigating a felony in progress, the police ought to take a hands off approach and "gather facts" without talking to anyone or doing anything.

That's my point exactly... he should have spoken with the 911 caller who was present on the scene. Had he done so, hemight have taken a completely different approach to the situation. He did not. He even went so far as to fabricate a discussion with the caller, ...one in which he swore false evidence to bolster his case. Up until his arrest, Gates claimed Crowley was a rogue. After his arrest, it became an issue of race.  The moral of this story is... don't fuck up, ...and if you do, don't try to cover up your mistake when faced by an adamant man, ...cause you'll make even bigger stupider mistakes in the process.

I for one am eagerly awaiting an answer about his seemingly falsified police report, wherein he alleges racial profiling by the 911 caller.

Being a Monday morning quarterback is wonderful because you get to make arm chair judgements based on events which already took place.

I knew if this thread went on long enough, we'd find something upon which we both agree. 

[Cap]

Okay, for the last time.  If a police officer is responding to a burglary at a residence he does not need a warrant or permission to enter the residence.  Hope that helps.

[Cap]

jag perhaps its different where they were but in Tx if you leave your door open while a police officer is at your door then they technically can enter your house.

It is the same in other states.  I had a party in my home state and there was a disturbance OUTSIDE my house involving some of my guests.  The officers asked me if anyone was left in the house (I thought there wasn't) and they followed me in to look, WITHOUT my permission.  Was it a big deal?  No.  They wanted to make sure nobody was injured, if there were people in the house. 

[dkf360]

Okay, for the last time.  If a police officer is responding to a burglary at a residence he does not need a warrant or permission to enter the residence.  Hope that helps.

She won't recover.

[24KT]

Not when you have uncooperative suspects in front of you.

Especially when you have an uncooperative suspect who claims to be the resident.
You turn to the caller and ask why they believe this to be a break-in and what prompted them to call 911 in the first place? Had he done that, ...he might have taken a different approach to the situation, and we might not have seen Gates so agitated, and we might not have seen accusations of being a rogue levelled.

It's just like splinterhands said "If you're a bad guy, the police are out to get you", ...but when one adopts that approach with someone who is merely a "suspect" and not a proven perpetrator of a crime, ...you cast too wide a net and you're bound to bring up innocent people, ...and when you do... they're going to bitch... loudly! The squeaky cleaner they are, ...the louder they yell.

It's one thing if Gates identity had not yet been established. Then I can understand luring his ass out onto public property in order to effect an arrest, until you can establish identity, ...but Gates was already established as the legal occupant when he made the arrest. He shouldn't have been arrested

Not at all because of probable cause.  Without probable cuase under the way you interpret things, this country would be a high crime zone. 

Don't kid yourself, ...your country is a high crime zone! 

[24KT]

Okay, for the last time.  If a police officer is responding to a burglary at a residence he does not need a warrant or permission to enter the residence.  Hope that helps.

But he was not responding to a burglary at the residence, ...and was not even called to the premises by the resident. Are you saying that I can make an anonymous call to the police describing a guy entering your own house, and ask them to send a car to check it out, ...that the police would have the right to enter your home against your will absent an invitation and a search warrant?

[dkf360]

But he was not responding to a burglary at the residence, ...and was not even called to the premises by the resident. Are you saying that I can make an anonymous call to the police describing a guy entering your own house, and ask them to send a car to check it out, ...that the police would have the right to enter your home against your will absent an invitation and a search warrant?

yes

[24KT]

It is the same in other states.  I had a party in my home state and there was a disturbance OUTSIDE my house involving some of my guests.  The officers asked me if anyone was left in the house (I thought there wasn't) and they followed me in to look, WITHOUT my permission.  Was it a big deal?  No.  They wanted to make sure nobody was injured, if there were people in the house. 

It was no big deal to you, ...although I'm sure that had you made a big deal out of it, ...you would have realized they could not do that. In any event, yours might be a gray area considering you had a party and there was an incident involving your guests. That wasn't the case with Gates. With Gates, ...there was no disturbance or incident, other than an anonymous caller reporting what she considered to be possibly suspicious activity.