That’s all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the post of mine which you answered. You know, the one having to do with Gates’ honesty and integrity having been called into question because of his, let’s say, inaccurate description of his behavior.
Perhaps you missed where I said Oprah cited the neighbor’s description of Gates’ behavior on television, followed by my cite to the program where she said it?
(It will be interesting to see how you try to wrestle with that, given that you appear to believe that no matter what, the black person is always right…and now we have two black people saying different things. :D)
I have no opinion on whether they should be arrested or not. I probably feel they have just as much right to be disruptive as have gay rights demonstrators whose book they seem to have taken a page from, and it’s worth noting that I have not suggested they should be arrested.
I also have no opinion on whether or not Gates should have been arrested. My only opinion is that under the circumstances the police were justified in arresting him.
Sure. Go ahead. (Though I have to leave now, so it may be a while before I can explain how you’re wrong about that, too.)
I have to admit bong hits might make it easier to understand the way you think, but honestly, I have to go do productive work now and so I can’t afford to think that way.
Lovely opinion but wrong. He should not have been arrested. He did not commit a crime. Yelling at a cop is not a crime. Perhaps asking for the cops name and badge number offended you. That too is not against the law. As a matter of fact a requirement for disturbing requires inciting others. Inside his home,Crowley had no way to make that stick. That is why he asked him to step outside. That way he could pretend it was inciting. except it was not. that is why the prosecutor killed it.
I thought arresting people required a crime to be committed.
According to your vaunted Gates, Crowley never asked him to go outside. Check the video from Oprah supplied by Starving. Please review and entwine facts and fantasy anew to spin more unsupported nonsense.
But here’s a question for you Mr. gonzomax: would it be possible for a person to ask for a badge number AND qualify for a disorderly conduct charge at the same time? Surely even you can imagine a belligerent and nasty person who YOU would agree merits to be arrested for disorderly conduct, screaming for a cops name and badge number. Or do I give your imagination too much credit?
The Massachusetts’ law was posted earlier in this thread. The only crime necessary is what the damn arrest is for: disorderly conduct. No murder weapon, stolen goods, or payment check from Bernie Madoff required.
Oh, are you just parroting someone else’s opinion, then? (Which I’d like to see a cite for, because I don’t think Bricker said his actions were illegal.) And you did NOT tell me why they were extralegal. You told me why you didn’t think the arrest was merited. Not the same thing, weasel.
YOU claimed it was extralegal. I’ve shown you a handful of times now that you’re wrong, and why. You simply come back and obfuscate. Try inflating that sagging backbone and step up to the plate. Please provide the statute that Crowley ran afoul of or retract your claim. Alternatively, let all see just what a weasel you are.
Because you and I have not had that many conversations wherein we compare the testimony of people of different races. Hence, you couldn’t possibly be talking from experience. Put baldly, you’re talking out of your ass.
That last sentence made no sense whatsoever, part B directly contradicts part A. Yes, Yes, repeat No.
They are precisely the same thing, shit for brains.
Yep, sure did. Still do, amongst others.
As you noted above, what you’ve done is yell “bullshit!” over and over. This is a bit weak, evidentiary wise. But tell you what: if you can provide anything to suggest that Massachussets does not have a statute concering “false arrest”, I will let you kiss my ass till I bark like a fox. Best offer you’ve had this year.
They are precisely the same thing, shit for brains.
Nope. You disagree with a judgement call he made. You then go far as to say it was illegal. One does not equal the other. Again, cite the statute that Crowley violated or retract your stupidity.
But you’ve ignored repeated requests for cites pointing to this supposed statute his actions violated. Translation: you’re full of shit. So, once again, cite snookims?
Oh, you’ve risen to new heights of absurdity and dumbfuckness. Well, done, Weasy. The point, numbnuts, isn’t whether the state has a statute covering false arrest, it’s whether Crowley’s committed an illegal arrest. So, once again, described what actions of his, specifically, were illegal? And then point to the statute.
And while you’re at it, provide a cite for Bricker opining that the arrest was “illegal” or “extralegal”.
What is 'disorderly conduct' in Massachusetts? | masslive.com Because some of you claim it was "disorderly conduct’ doe not make it so. Here are legal opinions that totally disagree. I realize without that you have no argument and that is why you tap dance so much. Fact is , you have no argument. the arrest was wrong.
Well, certainly more than directly relevant case law and decisions from Massachussetts, that’s for sure! Lightweight stuff like that don’t work on Mags, nosir! An affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Gabriel, might carry the day, but the boy is a mite stubborn.
There are requests pending to you. I’m so surprised you would not man. Shocking it is.
So, let’s see those cites proving Crowley’s action to be illegal, weasy. Where’s that statute? And what, specifically, did he do that was in violation?
Isn’t it about time you manned up?
And just to help you, thoe rulings on those cases are speak to…drumroll…THOSE CASES. We have a cop making a judgement call. Two officers who were there ON RECORD saying Gates was belligerent—and a neighbor. We also have a bunch of other cops, none of which have come out in support of either Crowley being wrong, never mind acting illegally.
Your intense desire to attempt to label me a racist, or a homophobe, is quite odd. It’s gotten to the point that I find it quite humorous. More boring, though. Sorry.
So ironic, considering how you keep dodging responsibility for your accusations of racism towards people you know nothing about earlier in this thread.
Back atcha, weasel.
ETA: You labeled yourself as racist when you labeled black people you know nothing about as racist at heart. I’m just calling a spade a shovel, as it were. You may find it boring, but I find your inability to examine your own behavior very, very tiresome. Time to STFU, because your bias is showing.
Or, just answer the question: on what basis is Cornel West, in your opinion, racist as heart? Just answer the question. Man up, as you are telling 'luci to do.
Or your bias. And why tell me to STFU? Haha. Really. You’ve tried it before and couldn’t do it. What makes you think I’ll obey the command of someone I have no respect for this time? You’ve got to think this stuff through a little better.
You’ve got all the answer you’re gonna get. You don’t like it, too fucking bad, toots. But feel free to follow me around and satisfy your obsession, my little marionette.
And you’re lying when you say I “know nothing” of the spawn of The Joker and Don King. But lies are just fine in the pursuit of your oh so noble goal, isn’t that right? You like to portray yourself a noble lady, but in hopes of getting one of your labels to finally stick to me you drop to your knees and whore yourself with lies. Pathetic, my little marionette. Pathetic.
Well, now, Mags, TG, IANAL but I’ve been sneered at, condescended to, and patted of the pointy little head enough to get some rough ideas. One of which is, those things Da Gonz cited for you are pretty darn definitive. This was argued by guys in nice suits, making hundreds of dollars an hour to argue, in a room likely paneled in very expensive wood.
Now, of course, you are free to search up some legal cites of your own to contradict the above, but in the principle of stark staring decisis, it other wise stands. What you call establishing a primo facist case.
Or, you can try to claim that none of this law stuff counts and you’re still right about what “illegal” means no matter what these amateurs say. Good luck with that.
Otherwise, looks like you got what you asked for, and hoist on your own retard. And the beauty part, eh? Was Gonzo what did it to you! That’s gonna leave a mark!
Kinda like Gunga Din, idn’t it?
“Tho I’ve frogged you and I’ve sprayed you
By the friggin’ Og that spayed you
You’re a better man than I am, Gonzo Din…”
Something like that. Memory not so good, it was about Indiana.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Really, you rattle off a list of black people that you feel free to assume are racist in their hearts, even though it’s blatantly apparent that you barely know who some of them are, but freak the fuck out at the thought of a white person, even ol’ Pat Buchanan, being accused of same. You can’t explain who Cornel West is, even though you’ve accused him of being a racist. You can’t or won’t name one single white racist, except David Duke. Your bias is obvious and it makes you unable to engage in discourse on this topic with reasonable people.
I’m not your marionette, toots. I’m the person who’s not going to let you forget that you called a whole bunch of black people racists, while simultaneously screaming your bloody head off because Skip Gates called Sgt. Crowley a racist (according to you), with as much or more basis than you had to call Cornel West a racist. You’re a hypocrite. That’s the bottom line.
Then what do you know about Cornel West? Why won’t you say it, if it will exonerate your accusation of racism? Because you’re full of shit. You’re the one labeling black people racist, while decrying the awfulness of labeling white people, including yourself, with the same label. You’re the liar. Your words indict you. All I’m doing it is repeating them back to you, and it’s obviously pissing you off, because you’ve started with the name calling, which of course you believe is completely justified when you do it, completely awful when it’s done to you.
I’ll have to get them back from your mother first.
No. You’ve got things backward, bubb. YOU made a claim that Crowley’s behavior was illegal. I called bullshit and asked you for what you would need to conclude that. namely:
the statute he violated
the specific action he took that violated that statute
It’s really that simple. Unless of course, you’re full of shit. In which case you will just continue with your obfuscating, weaseling, and non answering.
So, for the hard of thinking, here’s what it is incumbent upon you to provide:
the statute he violated
the specific action he took that violated that statute
Oh, if you want gonzo to help you provide those things because you don’t have the chops, that’s fine with me. But his cite is insufficient to prove your claim.
