Comments on: ‘Stupid’ Disorderly Conduct Laws

By: Karl Born

Karl Born — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:58:19 +0000

Josh is right, by the way. It is important to remember that criticism of “disorderly conduct” statutes is not necessarily meant to apply to more limited statutes concerning actions and threatened actions. The criticism is of the grant of undefined or open-ended authority to police. Police should never be permitted to arrest a person for mere rudeness or for refusing to follow an order that a police officer has no right to issue.

By: Area Man

Area Man — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:45:16 +0000

Norris,

I suggest you pick a better example.

You must know as well as I do that threatening the life of the president *is* a crime in the United States as well. That the crowds in Iran decided to chant “death to ahmadinejad” is rather unfortunate, since it does provide their oppressors with a legitimate cover.

-Area Man

By: Norris Hall

Norris Hall — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:16:04 +0000

The Iranian authorities used the same “disorderly conduct” justification to arrest street protesters who
1. were protesting on public street
2. would not obey police demands to disband
3. were behaving unruly
4. were shouting threats (”death to ahmadinejab”)

Like many supporters of police power, I hope they throw the books at those “raving lunatics”

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:51:50 +0000

Why do all you clowns take the police report as definitive fact. Clearly an officer has a self interested motive to write the facts to best protect himself and cover his actions.

By: ryan

ryan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:53:42 +0000

Let me not ignore it. This is why we need to get rid of sovereign immunity. A police officer who thought that he’d be hit for kidnapping or assault would think long and hard about who he arrested on flimsy charges. It’s high time that our public servants face the same consequences they so (in some cases) carelessly toss people into. Simply defending against a flimsy disorderly conduct arrest (as the lawyer above can surely attest to) costs a significant amount of time and money. The officers should have similar consequences on the line.

By: Area man

Area man — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:07:55 +0000

… or their political expediency…

The Middlesex County DA might not see the upside in trying the case since it is an elected position and he might want the governor of Massachusetts and the mayor of Cambridge to show up at some campaign events.

… just saying

-Area Man

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:48:11 +0000

Cambridge dropping the charges has little to do with legitimacy and tons to do with the fear instilled in whenever the racist charge is raised.

Period.

And the race baiters and pimps know this.

By: drgeox

drgeox — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:36:54 +0000

“Professor Gates satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that “persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access” were affected.”

Utter bullshit. “In a public place” is not the same thing as “near a public place.” The fact that Cambridge dropped the charges immediately and without legal intervention tells us all we need to know about their legitimacy.

By: Gatesgate Follow-up - In The Agora

Gatesgate Follow-up - In The Agora — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:16:22 +0000

[...] have been several replies to my post titled “‘Stupid’ Disorderly Conduct Laws” which are worth highlighting here. Reason editor Jacob Sollum offers his take here, though [...]

By: ThatOtherGuy

ThatOtherGuy — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:40:51 +0000

“Professor Gates satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code s. 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that ‘persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access’ were affected.”

I suggest you read better next time, before the three possible avenues of Disorderly Conduct and the definition of public, there is the phrase “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.” He did not berate the officer with the aim to annoy people, inconvenience them, or alarm them. He was yelling because he believed that he was being treated unjustly. He cannot be convicted of DC if he doesn’t meet all the requirements. That’s why they dropped the charges.