Charge against Gates

I am backed up on entries, so let me drop this one in. Getting to be old news.

One other thing, I was double checking an email with all manner of analysis of the health "care" bill in the House. I could not verify the entries; indeed, I could not really find a proper copy of the bill to analyze.

I am not saying the email was incorrect, but this whole program is insane. Copies don't align, the Huffington Post doesn't align with anything. So, take everything with much sale. Just remember this bill is around for three weeks and it took seven for Mr. Obama to pick a dog.

-----------

You are probably up on the incident that caused the beer summit, that Obama says was not a summit, which makes sense.

I looked up the police report, which is here, as the reports were typically childish. Then, I looked up the penal law provision that was the basis of the charge. I put that below.

As is usual, journalists have no idea what to properly report. They love the football game, but have no interest in the rulebook, if they can even read it. There is no arrest story without stating what the charge was.

I also found it interesting when Mr. Gates produced Harvard ID, rather than his driver's license, that the arresting officer called Harvard police to come, which they did. Then, when Gates was being removed, he mentioned that the front door was not functioning, so a maintenance man from Harvard came to secure the door and the officer asked Gates if that man were acceptable. This is amazing, unless the incident were on Harvard's campus, which would have to be a first guess.

Gates, amid his rantings, politely summed up in the report, kept threatening that the officer did not know who he was messing with, etc.

I think we need to pull back the lords of the realm.

Anyway, the charges belie what was being said:

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I can only surmise there were words and/or actions that fit this charge, in the officer's view, some wanton and lascivious speech or behavior that could have offended the woman caller, Ms Whalen. If you read the report, I don't think this was the sort of case where the officer felt threatened, only that Gates went off the deep end and Harvard has not cured him of a potty mouth.

In my experience in NY, the police would quote exactly what Gates said and I bet they would do the same in Mass where a mere human is arrested.

All in all, the statute seem designed for use under different circumstances, though that is not a rationale not to use it. That is the problem with making up laws, they can be applied to things you never intended. (Or, maybe it was properly cited.) I read the law a few times and, I think there is a syntax problem.

Imagine if Clarence Thomas were involved. I bet we would know what he said. In fact, we would know what he said as a ten years old, as well.

Of course, Clarence Thomas would never resort to mindless arrogance, not being from the self-appointed ruling class.