Recently, a guy on a message forum I read posted a link to a completely unrelated series of videos that have none-the-less given me some incite into this incident. The videos are done by a pair of brothers who live here in California, and have to do with the open carry of unloaded firearms (which is perfectly legal in this state, it's concealed carry without a permit, or carrying a loaded weapon that gets ya' in trouble). Specifically, they did about 5 or 6 little 2 minute videos of possible scenarios that might result with the police from getting a "man with a gun" call, which they are required to check on under California Penal Code 12031. The 12031 Check (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pullnshoot25&view=videos) videos where quite interesting.
Among the other things they pointed out is that under the 5th Amendment, you are not required to answer any questions the police ask of you. You are not required to submit to any warrantless or "unreasonable" searches of your person or property. And if the police search you without probable cause, they are violating your civil rights. Suspician of a crime is not probable cause as defined under the law. Apparently you are not even required to produce identification (though in a situation where one of your neighbors has called in a report of a potential break in, I think it can only help to produce some sort of document that proves you live there.)
While the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, I think the Professor might have been wiser to exercise his 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and not yell accusations of racism at the officers. If his behavior was deemed belligerant, aggressive, or threatening in any way, then it would be standard police procedure to hand cuff him to reduce the risk of injury to the officers. Heck, I've been handcuffed before when I was merely "accused" of assault and I was remaining calm and not giving the officers any problems.
Another video I found on YouTube was by a Law Proffessor who stated, flat out, that you should never, ever, ever, talk to the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc) under any circumstances because "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Talking to the police when you are a suspect can only make things worse for you. And not because the police are out to get you, but because they are fallible human beings who don't have a photographic memory. In fact something the two brothers have started doing is carrying digital micro-recorders with them to record everything that is said if they should get stopped by the police (which they have been in the past simply for legally carrying their unloaded firearms in plain sight, which is not against the law in California). Having not been a firsthand witness to the incident, none of us will probably ever know exactly what happened and how.
I can see President Obama commenting on the incident if Prof. Gates was a long time friend of his. But I have to wonder why he has invited both Prof. Gates and the arresting officer to a reconcilliatory meeting at the White House? That really seems to be going above and beyond the job description of "President of the United States", to take such a big interest in what really amounts to a local level police matter. It's good that he has not used the power of his office to end the officer's career, I agree. But I don't think he should be involving himself in the incident further than to comment on what happened to his friend (and I still haven't found any article detailing Prof. Gates's specific relationship to the President yet.)A President needs to avoid the appearance of any racial bias to be an effective leader. Even commenting on the situation was probably not a wise thing to do, as the situation has no direct bearing on the responsebilities of the Executive Branch unless he was issuing a Pardon. Which since the D.A. is not pursuing the matter of the charge of disorderly conduct against Prof. Gates, is not required.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-07-29 02:47 pm (UTC)Among the other things they pointed out is that under the 5th Amendment, you are not required to answer any questions the police ask of you. You are not required to submit to any warrantless or "unreasonable" searches of your person or property. And if the police search you without probable cause, they are violating your civil rights. Suspician of a crime is not probable cause as defined under the law. Apparently you are not even required to produce identification (though in a situation where one of your neighbors has called in a report of a potential break in, I think it can only help to produce some sort of document that proves you live there.)
While the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, I think the Professor might have been wiser to exercise his 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and not yell accusations of racism at the officers. If his behavior was deemed belligerant, aggressive, or threatening in any way, then it would be standard police procedure to hand cuff him to reduce the risk of injury to the officers. Heck, I've been handcuffed before when I was merely "accused" of assault and I was remaining calm and not giving the officers any problems.
Another video I found on YouTube was by a Law Proffessor who stated, flat out, that you should never, ever, ever, talk to the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc) under any circumstances because "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Talking to the police when you are a suspect can only make things worse for you. And not because the police are out to get you, but because they are fallible human beings who don't have a photographic memory. In fact something the two brothers have started doing is carrying digital micro-recorders with them to record everything that is said if they should get stopped by the police (which they have been in the past simply for legally carrying their unloaded firearms in plain sight, which is not against the law in California). Having not been a firsthand witness to the incident, none of us will probably ever know exactly what happened and how.
I can see President Obama commenting on the incident if Prof. Gates was a long time friend of his. But I have to wonder why he has invited both Prof. Gates and the arresting officer to a reconcilliatory meeting at the White House? That really seems to be going above and beyond the job description of "President of the United States", to take such a big interest in what really amounts to a local level police matter. It's good that he has not used the power of his office to end the officer's career, I agree. But I don't think he should be involving himself in the incident further than to comment on what happened to his friend (and I still haven't found any article detailing Prof. Gates's specific relationship to the President yet.)A President needs to avoid the appearance of any racial bias to be an effective leader. Even commenting on the situation was probably not a wise thing to do, as the situation has no direct bearing on the responsebilities of the Executive Branch unless he was issuing a Pardon. Which since the D.A. is not pursuing the matter of the charge of disorderly conduct against Prof. Gates, is not required.