You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #85: did you see the ID? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
mountains539 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-26-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -It was Sgt. Crowley who BROKE the law and he did it very soon after he arrived... Spazito  Jul-26-09 11:08 AM   #0 
  - Nah. As critical as I've been about how the cops handled this .. I think it's  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:17 AM   #1 
  - It is State law...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 11:22 AM   #2 
  - It is also law to have to produce a search warrant before entering a house.  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:38 AM   #4 
  - Boy - what utter and complete BULLSHIT you've posted here...  TankLV   Jul-26-09 11:42 AM   #5 
  - You need to do a search on how critical I've been of this asshole cop.  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:47 AM   #9 
  - You are forgetting something.....Gates asked him for his ID AFTER the cop had  Th1onein   Jul-26-09 12:47 PM   #42 
     - Read every single thread post before you lecture me, because I'm  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:55 PM   #50 
     - I read them all. Bzzzt! You lose!  Th1onein   Jul-26-09 01:05 PM   #57 
     - did you see the ID?  mountains539   Jul-26-09 02:09 PM   #85 
  - don't call cops pigs, please -- this is really no better than racial slurs  Bumblebee   Jul-26-09 11:55 AM   #14 
  - Calling cops pigs is NOT on par with racial slurs  Raineyb   Jul-26-09 12:21 PM   #27 
  - It's the same mentality...  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 02:08 PM   #84 
     - a x^2+b x+c = 0  joey5150   Jul-26-09 04:13 PM   #118 
  - Not a "racial slur" but  Cha   Jul-26-09 12:52 PM   #45 
  - I am in the "Crowley went over the line" club, but the passer by (who did not know Gates)  MADem   Jul-26-09 02:47 PM   #96 
     - As far as I know, we have yet to hear from her  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 03:01 PM   #101 
  - So, if I understand you correctly...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 11:43 AM   #7 
  - I have no interest in arguing with you about how this call was handled,  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:52 AM   #12 
  - I have read your posts, I know you have been very critical of the police actions...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 11:58 AM   #16 
  - The idea that police should stop in the midst of a crime is cartoonish  marshall   Jul-26-09 12:17 PM   #24 
     - The law exists, Sgt. Crowley did not follow it...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:21 PM   #28 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 12:33 PM   #34 
     - Personal attacks really don't help your argument...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:44 PM   #38 
        - You've yet to prove to me that you comprehend what lawful request means.  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:52 PM   #46 
           - I see you do agree he broke the law, where you and I have a difference is in when, not if,...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:56 PM   #52 
     - You did read the qualification within that section?  marshall   Jul-26-09 01:28 PM   #65 
        - There is nothing in the statement you posted with regard to the duties of...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:43 PM   #72 
           - The crux of the argument is the meaning of the word "lawful"  marshall   Jul-26-09 02:00 PM   #80 
              - Subsection 98F , by the very fact it is an addendem to the main...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 02:22 PM   #90 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 12:29 PM   #32 
     - There was no crime  omega minimo   Jul-26-09 01:12 PM   #61 
  - If you really believe Gates would have calmed down after seeing the cop's ID  geek_sabre   Jul-26-09 02:07 PM   #83 
  - Once Crowley had seen Gates ID, he was required by law to show his own ID..  Fumesucker   Jul-26-09 11:44 AM   #8 
  - Of course. I agree, but that's not what the OP is arguing.....the OP is  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:56 AM   #15 
  - He lured the man outside by claiming that the acoustics in the  WillieW   Jul-26-09 11:54 AM   #13 
     - Absolutely right  Alcibiades   Jul-26-09 12:20 PM   #25 
        - Ha--good point!  MADem   Jul-26-09 02:51 PM   #98 
  - The law is never simple.  Statistical   Jul-26-09 12:49 PM   #43 
     - Sgt. Crowley did NOT produce his identification card even AFTER..  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:53 PM   #47 
     - Why don't you read?  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:58 PM   #53 
        - I did read and responded accordingly on another of your posts on this point n/t  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:04 PM   #56 
     - I beg to differ  Hutzpa   Jul-26-09 12:56 PM   #51 
        - I never said the law isn't cut and dry. I said it isn't easy.  Statistical   Jul-26-09 01:53 PM   #77 
  - LOL, so Crowley gets to disobey state law while he is  merh   Jul-26-09 11:29 AM   #3 
  - I suggest taking .. at the very least .. an introductory law course at your local  cboy4   Jul-26-09 11:43 AM   #6 
     - The law says nothing about "unless there is exigent circumstances"...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 11:49 AM   #10 
     - It's implied vis-a-vis the fourth amendment warrant exemption(s)  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:02 PM   #18 
        - No, the burden is on you to prove it was not a lawful request.  merh   Jul-26-09 12:06 PM   #20 
     - I would suggest you take that introductory course.  merh   Jul-26-09 11:52 AM   #11 
        - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Jul-26-09 12:09 PM   #22 
  - there was no imminent danger excusing not showing his ID when it was requested  nini   Jul-26-09 12:30 PM   #33 
  - Sorry, but imminent danger is not a legal factor .. forcing a cop  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:39 PM   #37 
     - sorry.. but the call wouldn't have gotten so HOT if the officer would have done so  nini   Jul-26-09 02:04 PM   #82 
        - Thanks, nini, I appreciate your post on this in terms of the law I used in my OP...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 04:10 PM   #117 
  - until it happens to you n/t  freeplessinseattle   Jul-26-09 01:32 PM   #66 
  - I usually agree with you, but not here  Lorien   Jul-26-09 03:32 PM   #111 
  - The case here is weak at best  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 12:00 PM   #17 
  - Believe me, had Crowley shown his identification card, it would be  merh   Jul-26-09 12:03 PM   #19 
  - Just how can you possibly know that?  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 12:20 PM   #26 
  - One doesn't have to be an expert in police report writing to know that  merh   Jul-26-09 12:34 PM   #36 
     - Again more speculation, no relevant facts  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 12:47 PM   #41 
        - On the contrary.  merh   Jul-26-09 12:54 PM   #49 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 01:04 PM   #55 
              - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 01:07 PM   #59 
                 - No, you're trying to pass off a non-fact as a fact  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:19 PM   #63 
                    - The report reflects Gates gave his name and then gave his ID card.  merh   Jul-26-09 01:42 PM   #70 
                       - Argumentum ad nauseam  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:47 PM   #74 
                          - You have yet to refute the facts.  merh   Jul-26-09 01:49 PM   #76 
                             - "facts" that don't exist generally are quite difficult to refute  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:59 PM   #79 
                                - You have to understand the purpose of the police report.  merh   Jul-26-09 02:10 PM   #86 
                                   - I don't "have to understand" what you think is it's purpose  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 02:28 PM   #91 
                                      - The purpose of the report is to record the incident and to memorialize  merh   Jul-26-09 02:35 PM   #94 
                                         - Ah yes! The key word here is "pertinent"  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 02:51 PM   #97 
                                            - It is pertinent to the case. Crowley knew that Gates was complaining  merh   Jul-26-09 02:56 PM   #100 
                                               - You win!  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 03:07 PM   #102 
                                               - I've based my argument on Crowley's report and the facts and the absense  merh   Jul-26-09 03:15 PM   #103 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 03:23 PM   #105 
     - Does the US Flag Code work what way?  merh   Jul-26-09 03:31 PM   #110 
  - The case is quite simple, actually...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:08 PM   #21 
  - You're simply trying to pass off speculation as fact  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 12:33 PM   #35 
     - "The law in question is meaningless, irrelevant and a red herring"  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:50 PM   #44 
        - After failing in the original assertion, now you want to try to rope me into more irrelevancies  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:07 PM   #58 
  - Yes. Lawful request means not telling an officer who has three suspected  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:14 PM   #23 
     - Straw man  glitch   Jul-26-09 12:23 PM   #29 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 12:27 PM   #30 
     - Did or did not Dr. Gates make a lawful request when...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 12:27 PM   #31 
        - Here is why Sgt. Crowley wrote that statement  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 12:44 PM   #39 
        - That does NOT answer why Sgt. Crowley did not produce HIS identification...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:20 PM   #64 
           - I don't answer loaded questions  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:43 PM   #71 
              - I would suggest to you the proof is in that Sgt. Crowley, at NO time, in his report,  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:46 PM   #73 
                 - I would suggest to you that you might want to bone up on what constitutes proof  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 01:56 PM   #78 
                    - I provided the law as it stands, provided quotes from Sgt. Crowley's official..  Spazito   Jul-26-09 02:03 PM   #81 
                       - Now you're just completely cornfused or pretending to be  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 02:22 PM   #89 
                          - To state this....  Spazito   Jul-26-09 02:28 PM   #92 
                             - You're trying to amalgamate two different areas of the report  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 02:42 PM   #95 
                                - Stating one's name does not meet the requirements as stipulated in  Spazito   Jul-26-09 02:56 PM   #99 
                                   - It's not MY assertion  MajorChode   Jul-26-09 03:29 PM   #108 
                                      - You are incorrect, I made no assertion, I provided the law as it exists...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 03:37 PM   #112 
        - This has nothing to do with your initial argument that the cop should have  cboy4   Jul-26-09 12:45 PM   #40 
           - The law is clear, Dr. Gates made a lawful request for identification...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:02 PM   #54 
              - Yea, your goalposts are in a new zip code in fact. That's how far you've  cboy4   Jul-26-09 01:12 PM   #62 
                 - The Mods did you SUCH a favour!  Karenina   Jul-26-09 01:33 PM   #67 
                 - I honestly don't understand your anger as it seems we agree with the salient point...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 01:34 PM   #68 
                    - And I believe you to be correct. That COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW  Karenina   Jul-26-09 04:02 PM   #115 
                       - Thanks, Karenina, I appreciate your post....  Spazito   Jul-26-09 04:28 PM   #120 
  - I wonder if he'll ask Obama to step outside at the White House.  undeterred   Jul-26-09 12:53 PM   #48 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 01:09 PM   #60 
  - Obama says he is an outstanding officer and invited him to the WH.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jul-26-09 01:37 PM   #69 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-26-09 03:26 PM   #106 
  - Obama is both a diplomat and politician.  Karenina   Jul-26-09 03:28 PM   #107 
  - ...  Wednesdays   Jul-26-09 01:48 PM   #75 
  - In the OP's defense, I don't believe this false legal argument has been  cboy4   Jul-26-09 03:30 PM   #109 
     - An argument you, in substance, agree with...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 03:50 PM   #114 
        - You're the only person I've ever heard advocate forcing the cops to  cboy4   Jul-26-09 04:07 PM   #116 
           - I advocated nothing, I posted the law as it exists...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 04:18 PM   #119 
  - Crowley violated Prof. Gates First Amendment rights  Gothmog   Jul-26-09 02:13 PM   #87 
  - Here is a good article from Slate on this issue  Gothmog   Jul-26-09 02:16 PM   #88 
  - Thanks, Gothmog, for this...  Spazito   Jul-26-09 02:33 PM   #93 
  - You may want to add this case to your your research.  merh   Jul-26-09 03:17 PM   #104 
  - Fortunately this is just a thread loaded with nutty information from a  cboy4   Jul-26-09 03:37 PM   #113 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC