Why Officer Crowley Should Be Fired

lady justicYou are not you today.  Today you are someone else.  Tabula Rasa.

Today, you are going to jail.

Sometime after noon,  you will be handcuffed, arrested, taken from your family, your home, booked, photographed, fingerprinted, and imprisoned before you can bond out after four hours of police custody.

To take this journey, you will need to bring a few things other than a toothbrush.  You must bring your imagination.  You will have to leave matters of race, politics, and other mind-benders behind that poison the contents of your cranium.

You must make decisions on what is just and fair from behind a veil of ignorance.

In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances.

In this hypothetical journey, forget about politics.  Blind yourself behind the veil — a construct by which society can reach reasonable, just, and fair conclusions.  Race is irrelevant.  Party identity is not and can not be an issue.  All we know is you are a person who will be arrested shortly.

***

High Noon.  The chauffeur pulls into your upper class home in Cambridge, Massachusetts after a long trip.  On top of the aggravation that comes along with traveling, the damned front door is jammed and you can’t unlock the door.  The exasperation is reaching a boiling point.

Don’t fret.  While Hopkins, the chauffeur (another witness conveniently left out of the police report as well as the occupants of the home in total), tries to pry open the front door, you remember a way in from the back!  After all, this is your own home, and at this point you kind of feel like whacking yourself with the cane you cling to because of a physical disability for not thinking of the backdoor move earlier.

Never mind the petty annoyances of the day.  You’re in.  Time to kick back, be with your family; maybe watch a Red Sox game.  Sadly, you’ll never get around to that.

Out of no where, a police officer comes to the front door.  He demands you come outside and identify yourself.  You ask him to identify himself.   It turns out the police were called to investigate a burglary in progress.  Since you live there and can prove it, this gets you upset after the police do not immediately leave upon realizing the mistake. In fact, the police officer comes inside your home, without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime was ongoing.

After showing the police officer your identification in your own home, you call the cop a “racist.”  Further, you call the cop a “prick.”  For the grand finale of insults to the boy in blue, you insult the police officer’s “mama,” but, do not say she is fat.

You act boorishly.  Without question, you are rude.  For a large part of this, you are in your home.  The most you do is stand on your porch, by the threshold, as the police officer leaves.  On your own property.

The police officer arrests you for “disorderly conduct.”  In the officer’s report, not one citizen who was a witness to the alleged crime is listed.  Yet, the officer will say many “passer-bys” were affected by your behavior despite not listing a single person who claims as much.  As it stands, there is no proof any citizens were affected by your conduct.

***

You wonder, what is disorderly conduct?

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G. L. c. 272, § 53,(5) has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of “disorderly” contained in Model Penal Code § 250.2(1)(a), (c) (1980). See Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 231-232 (2001) (summarizing history of § 53 and its construction). See also Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 595-597 (1975). “The resulting definition of ‘disorderly’ . . . includes only those individuals who, ‘with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof . . . : (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or . . . (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.'” Commonwealth v. Chou, supra at 232 (citations omitted).(6) “Public” is defined as “affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.” Commonwealth v. A Juvenile  … (See, COMMONWEALTH v. JOSEPH MULVEY)

The Commonwealth adopts the Model Penal Code so that the state statute can pass constitutional muster.  Without the Model Penal Code, the pertinent Disorderly Conduct statute would not only be unconstitutional as it says in the above case, but it would also read like Milton, or Chaucer, or a combination of them both with bad endings:

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.

Here are the facts in your favor:  You are not a “common night walker” although you may have insinuated the police officer’s “mama” was.  You are not a “brawler” nor are you “lewd to the opposite sex.”  You are none of the things listed in the statue except being a “disorderly person.”  Are you?

Each and every element must be proven beyond and to the exclusion of each and every reasonable doubt.  Standard jury instruction.  There must be “probable cause” as to each element as well to arrest.  Based on the totality of the circumstances, was there probable cause as to each and every element of Disorderly Conduct?  No.

I mean, did you “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof . . . : (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or . . . (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor?”

The first thing the government must establish to make a prima facie case is that you acted with a purpose.  A purpose “to cause” a variety of maladies.  We must examine your mens rea.  Since causation is an element of the offense that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, one must ask this question: But for the police arriving at your home, would this have happened?  Simply, no.  There is not sine qua non causation or purpose to cause the proscribed behaviors.

Despite this fact, your wrists are beginning to hurt from the handcuffs.

Ok, did you intend to cause brawling, riots, fighting or other acts contemplated by the statute?  Is there any, I mean one scintilla of evidence in the police report, indicating the name of one person (not a police officer swarm called for backup) whose tranquility or peace was adversely impacted?  One witness?  No.  Yet, despite this, you are forcibly placed into a police cruiser, in handcuffs, and taken away.

Did the police officer have a warrant to enter your home after learning you were the occupant?  No.  Could the police officer have taken the time to get a warrant if he felt a crime was being committed and had probable cause to have a judge sign off on it?  Yes.  But, there was no underlying crime to speak of after the investigation turned out you were not burglarizing your own home.  Therefore, he could not get any judge with a brain to sign anything.

Did you entice others to “fight?”  No evidence of that.   There is not one civilian named or who has come forward claiming you “create[d] a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor?”  No one claims you were “violent” or caused the public to become violent.  You did not cause a “hazardous or physically offensive condition.”  As it so happens, the police caused that by calling for backup.  There is absolutely no proof of this element —  that your conduct caused this “hazardous” situation that never happened.  There are no “fighting words” as a matter of law nor is there a “clear and present danger.”

Could the officer have walked away once realizing no crime had been committed?  Yes.  Ought the officer’s “mama” have been insulted?  No.  Does insulting an officer’s mommy from the porch (at most) rise to the level of a disorderly conduct charge?  No.  Or calling the officer a racist?  No.

The officer swears under oath to protect and serve the community.  Part of that is knowing what the law is.  Routinely, officers try to track the language in a statute so as to conform to law.  However, just putting in the requisite legalese does not make a crime.  Or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.  Here, there is no crime, but, the police force you into the cruiser and arrest you in front of your family.

***

The ‘cuffs get tight.  Sweat beads up on your forehead in the back of the cruiser.  The air conditioning is probably off and the stench from other arrests are typically present and not lovely.  You were just arrested in your own home — part of which is the porch.  Private property.  Property you earned though honest work. The place where your wife sleeps, and your children play their games.

You were arrested for doing nothing except insulting a cop who could not follow the law and let his emotions control the outcome of the day.  The D.A. drops the charges.  They can not proceed in good faith.  The police agree in the filing decision and do not push the issue.

The police officer actually caused you to become agitated and affected your peace and tranquility.  It’s fair to say the officer caused (purposefully) an annoyance beyond the pale.  The government wrongfully arrested you for something clearly not a crime.  The government abandoned their oath to follow the law.  Candidly, the officer broke the law and let his emotions control.   Intentionally.  I ask you, would you want to go to jail for a crime never committed on your property?

Think about that.  Jail.  The smell.  The other criminals.  Rapists, prostitutes, murderers, drug addicts, pedophiles, and armed jaywalkers.  Get in the shoes of the arestee and ask yourself, how would that feel?  Are we not a nation of laws?  Who came closer to breaking a law once you actually have seen what the law is?  Officer Crowley took the liberty away from a citizen without just cause let alone probable cause.

Not knowing who you would be in the original position, would you chance casting yourself into the position of the arestee, Professor Gates?  If you did not know where you would land in society from behind this veil of ignorance, would you want to be in the shoes of Gates knowing you would be arrested in this manner?  No.  No fair or enlightened society would stand for such an arrest.  Thankfully, the charges were dropped to buttress that point.

For his aggregious and unforgivable conduct, Officer Crowley should be fired.  He broke the law.  It’s called a wrongful arrest.

Trivia: Who invented the original position, the veil of ignorance, and what university did he hail from?

Share!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

15 Responses to “Why Officer Crowley Should Be Fired”

  1. PCL Says:

    OMG Cube! That was excellent. So I guess, Crowley, in fact, acted ‘stupidly’?
    Nice, Cube–and that’s why you had better be getting the ‘big bucks’!

  2. Cube Says:

    Thank you. It’s worth tracking down the trivia question. Click on veil of ignorance and see who wrote it. See if the name rings a bell.

    “Stupidly” is an understatement. He broke the law. Cop ego. I purposefully left race out here, however, if a white dude was there, this shit wouldn’t go down. I left it out to make a point without it.

  3. PCL Says:

    Oh, the name definitely rings a bell. How close in relation are we? And does this mean anything? I liked it!

    Recognizing that social institutions distort our views (by sometimes generating envy, resentment, alienation, or false consciousness) and bias matters in their own favor (by indoctrinating and habituating those who grow up under them), Rawls saw the need for a justificatory device that would give us critical distance from them. The original position (OP) is his “Archimedean Point,” the fulcrum he uses to obtain critical leverage. TJ at 230-32. The OP is a thought experiment that asks: what principles of social justice would be chosen by parties thoroughly knowledgeable about human affairs in general but wholly deprived—by the “veil of ignorance”—of information about the particular person or persons they represent?

  4. PCL Says:

    Oops, sorry I forgot quotation marks on that paragraph–put em in for me, would you Cube?

  5. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    I told y’all that obama was right to refer to the cops actions as stupid, since the cop was a whiteman, he should have known better, because being white carries certain responsibilities of higher standards.

  6. House Republican to Demand Apology From President on Gates-Gate « Daily Dose Says:

    […] demand, I would suggest he consider a few things before even walking it back a little more.  A quick review of the legal issues surrounding the Gates arrest arguably supports stronger language than the President initially […]

  7. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    oh now the gladys kravitz character is claiming that when she called the police, she told them that someone with 2 suitcases was having trouble getting in to the front door and that she couldn’t tell if it was her neighbor or not,
    nor did she report a burgulary, but only that someone was at the house with 2 suitcases trying to get in the front door.

    • Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

      hahahahahha—- she called the police on her lunch hour,
      hahahah to report that two men with suitcases were entering a house in broad daylight because that would look suspicious to an A-hole.
      ahahahahah

  8. President Obama, Please Take The Witness Stand! « Cube Says:

    […] Cube Why You’re Here, I Don’t Know « Why Officer Crowley Should Be Fired […]

  9. G. Xavier Robillard Says:

    so the whole veil concept was created by, uh, em,

    yo mamma, that’s who.

  10. Cube Says:

    Splash. Here is the law you never address. G.’s comment is what is known as a “comment.” I can’t believe you don’t raise the issues. I’m telling you. You’re wrong. Also, you should have posted here. To continue the discussion, kindly keep it here. Don’t conflate the posts. That’s a request. It’s my blog. Respect the house. If I didn’t like you in a twisted way, I’d send The Iron Sheik to your house! I don’t like to ban like others. I won’t do it. But, limit your comments to comments. NO more manifestos. An article can be written in an article and you have a blog to do that with.

    In the meantime, here is the above law I provide. You provide none and don’t respond. You never said whether you were right or wrong? On the law you are wrong. Politics are different. Read this article.

    • Splash Says:

      Fair enough.

      Incidentally, I invite you to our little Oasis to debate with any member (including myself) any issue you chose on any thread on which you chose to do it. You are that welcome there.

      • Cube Says:

        Um, did you see these cops? One banged a bunch of illegals and one a cow. WTF. I’m telling you, somethings going on. I feel a disturbance in the Force. I mean, the cops screw people everyday, but this is absurd.

  11. Cube Says:

    I dare anyone to read this arrest affidavit.

    Got Milk? Extremely Gross.

    http://bit.ly/6yFpT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: