@McD - I'll address some of your points:
"...you indicate a citizen does not have the right to speak their mind to a cop, berate him or what ever you want to call it."
I used the word 'berate' for a reason. It has a meaning. Look it up.
'Speak one's mind': more fungible; depends on specific circumstances.
"What then do they have the right to say to a police officer. Where is that spelled out?
Consult an attorney who specializes in that area of the law. You could rely on empiricism and logic, but on a guess from what you've written so far, your body of knowledge acquired from those disciplines is sorely lacking.
"You contend it is not OK to speak your mind to a police officer with in limits"
Wrong again.
I contended that it is not OK to speak your mind to a police officer WITHOUT limits.
You need to read more carefully, or 'bone up' on your interpretive skills.
"...but you are wrong that dropped implies NO fact finding. The DA felt there was not enough grounds to prosecute."
No, I was not wrong.
You've got it straight from the county DA himself, eh? You have lots of high profile friends, don't you ("...I've met Professor Gates on a few occasions...", "...I've friends on Police forces in other cities and states, notably New York...")? Did they give you the 'skinny' on this case? You have a direct line to the office of the Middlesex (Mass.) County District Attorney?
My assertion is TRUE: 'dropping the charges' does NOT mean, ipso facto, that the charges lacked ANY merit, nor that the arrest itself was 'bad'. Think of it this way: your verbosity on this subject does NOT mean, ipso facto, that you are correct, nor that you possess anything more than the reasoning ability of a junior high school student auditioning for the debating team.
Pick up a copy of "Law for Dummies" (you could use one); 'finding of fact' is a legal term-of-art, and is not to be confused with the simple word 'fact'. Again, refer to prior paragraph. Also, look up "public nuisance' and "disorderly conduct" while you're nosing around.
"...what characterizes a police state in your eyes?" "Draw me the line."
No, YOU draw the line for US. Remember, the burden of proof lies with the 'affirmative'. You assert it; you prove it.
Conduct an experiment: you and your companion can go back to Cambridge and re-create the events of that emotionally scarring evening in 1995 (were you drinking Scorpion Bowls at the Hong Kong in Harvard Square, by any chance?). For the reader's edification: what the cops did that night was stupid and unwarranted, assuming that what the writer asserted is true, and I have my doubts.
Approach law officers at random and start calling them names, threaten them, refuse to calm down (better yet, do everything you can to cause the situation to escalate), and then report back to us on the results of your adventure (likely your juvenile asses will be in the pokey quicker than you can scream "Mommy, come get us out of jail!").
For the record, I have gotten in the face of 'cowboy cops' a few times in my life, the last being with a Mass. State Trooper at Logan Airport in October 2007. But those encounters involved knowing the law, and the responsibilites under that law of BOTH the officer and myself.
The difference here is that you advertise clearly that your sentiments run against the police, and you have a simplistic view of their role in the society, to go along with similar 'tunnel visioned' stands on the 1st Amendment and the (according to you) nascent police state in the USA.
I respect the police, and KNOW (empiricism and logic again, you should try them sometime) that the vast majority of these men and women are good and decent people who do a very difficult job under trying circumstances, like the expectations of folks like you that they are paid to put up with whatever 'knee jerk' abuse a non-officer decides to throw at them (like I suggested earlier, YOU go try that and tell all of us how it works out for ya).
In closing, I'll reference a biblical passage that was scripted into an early, and funny episode of 'All in the Family':
(Proverbs 14:7, King James version): Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Translation: Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot.
And so I won't 'argue' with you. If you're half as smart as I'm guessing you think you are, you'll consider the points I've made here, and that others have made elsewhere. You still have some growing up to do, skippy.
If you're personally offended, then you're a hypocrite. You did say, in your most recent comment here: "My argument is consistent that white, black, Chinese, whatever, people have the right to say what they want in the United States of America to other adults, no matter how distasteful, provided they don't physically threaten others or incite others to physical violence." Well, I raise a glass in toast to your 'consistency'. Congratulations.
I'm done.
Fitman, you can come in and do your Major Frank Burns imitation for us now (the only one you do well, btw).
