Cambridge Police Unit Demands Apology From Obama

[nowhereman 1]

I blame Bush... I haven't blamed him this week so he's due.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I blame Obama the Socialist.

I blame inbred sh!tkickers.

[HAL 9000 96]

Waiting for the inertia to come this way too.

[nowhereman 1]

Close this thread too... it will end up in the crapper if you don't!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I blame Obama the Socialist.

I blame inbred sh!tkickers.

I blame Jon Voight.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

[HAL 9000 96]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

Disorderly conduct is what you would call an offense. You might want to read the police report.

The legal reason ended when the ID was confirmed. Period. Trying to make orange juice out of apples is not cool.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

Disorderly conduct is pretty vague. Leaves a lot of wiggle room and potential for abuse of authority.

[doodlebugg 10]

Close this thread too... it will end up in the crapper if you don't!

speakin' of the crapper i blame the bad fish i had last tuesday night

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here is what Cambridge's law says:

"MUNICIPAL CODE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSSETTS Chapter 9.08.010 Disorderly conduct--Profanity and insulting language.

No person shall behave himself in a rude or disorderly manner, or use any indecent, profane or insulting language in any street or public place. No person shall make or cause to be made, any unnecessary noise or noises in any public street, private way or park, so as to cause any inconvenience or discomfort for the inhabitants of the City."

This law is vague and therefore invites what the legal profession refers to as "selective enforcement" (not uniformly applied to all people) or inconsistent enforcement. That is, it allows the officer too much room to interpret what rude, disorderly, indecent, profane, insulting or unnecessary noise mean. Different officers may apply it using personal or differing criteria. Also, the wording of the law seems to belong to an earlier era and doesn't realistically fit today's community standards.

Rudeness, profanity and insults are not pleasant things to witness or endure and are evidence of insensitivity to the feelings of others. But, I think most people today, if they were honest, would not support law enforcement arresting a person for being rude, insulting another person or using profanity. This is, after all, a country with a long history of people having the freedom to "speak their minds". And, while many people might lament this fact, an awful lot of people ( too many to fill the town jail) might let out with a string of "four-letter words" when "Pissed off", injured or frightened.

There should be another component to justify arrest. If the perpetrator was bullying or harassing an individual (repeatedly taunting, cornering, following or intimidating another person) so the person was suffering significant discomfort, couldn't escape, feared for their safety or in the case of the police officer, couldn't do his job; then I think most people would have no problem with an arrest of the perpetrator. In this case, however, the officer did determine that the professor was in his own home and not a burglar. And, nothing in the story suggests the professor once identified was perceived by the officer as a threat to his safety.

That "significant discomfort" component is missing from the first sentence of the Cambridge law, but is present in the second sentence as regards "unnecessary noise or noises". However, it broadly applies the criteria to "any inconvenience or discomfort". It would be better to set a standard with measurable criteria for level of noise based on the time of day.

It seems to me that under the existing law, when Gene Kelly decided to go "Singing in the Rain", he might have been collared had an officer been on that city street. He was all over the street and sidewalk and making a lot of unnecessary noise. He didn't have to be singing. He could have just opened an umbrella, walked down the sidewalk and kept to himself like everyone else. That would have been orderly.

In summary, when a law is vague and doesn't reflect community standards, it can easily be applied selectively or unevenly. In that situation, it would be expected that people may (rightly or wrongly) feel mistreated or discriminated against because of their race, religion or age (especially if there is a history of that kind of treatment). And, in this case, I believe President Obama was correct that "cooler heads should have prevailed" once the professor's identity was established. But, the distinguished professor may also owe the officer an apology for jumping to a false conclusion about profiling, if as the officer states he "flew into a verbal rage when officers asked him for identification". After all, they were only trying to protect the professor's property.

http://glennwsharvey.newsvine.com/_news/20...rges-of-racism-

[_Simpson_ 250]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

Disorderly conduct is what you would call an offense. You might want to read the police report.

The legal reason ended when the ID was confirmed. Period. Trying to make orange juice out of apples is not cool.

Uh yeah thats what they arrested him on. Period. There was a legal reason therefore making what you said wrong. According to the police he was being unruly and rude.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

Disorderly conduct is pretty vague. Leaves a lot of wiggle room and potential for abuse of authority.

It is vague but if the officers account of the story is true I dont blaming them for arresting him.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Good bet he doesn't have the balls to do so for his racially offensive remark assuming because someone is white they will act in a certain way.

word

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I bet they're wishing they hadn't...

[Alpha1978 0]

Arresting someone without a legal reason to do so is pretty stupid in any logical book.

How is disorderly conduct not a legal reason?

Disorderly conduct is what you would call an offense. You might want to read the police report.

The legal reason ended when the ID was confirmed. Period. Trying to make orange juice out of apples is not cool.

No it did not end when the ID was confirmed.I read the report and our professor never stopped arguing and screaming bloody murder insulting officers who were just answering the call that they were dispatched to.I work in law enforcement I can tell you that those words are being thrown around a lot when people do not have a better argument.

Stop black drug dealer on the block and the first thing that will come out his mouth will be"oh you are harassing me just because I am black!"

Stop latino crackhead that is kneeling next to someone elses car it will be because they are latino.

Deal with drunk or high white dude he will call you wetback and say things like "why don't you go back to your country?"

Our professor with his degree should of had more common sense than that.If he nicely explained what happened and showed his ID I am very confident that the officers would tell him to have a safe night and they would leave.

So maybe next time time when there is a burglary call at the professors house and officers arrive and see a black man in his house maybe they should just say nevermind instead of subjecting themselves to justifying why they are doing their job.

Sorry but since I get to see the incidents like that first hand and it happens a lot - it just irks the hell out of me to see how some people think.