I fit the description…(artandeverythingafter.com)
artandeverythingafter.com
I fit the description…
http://artandeverythingafter.com/i-fit-the-description/
135 comments
Indeed. The only thing in this story that really disturbed me is that the officer apparently went for his gun immediately. This whole situation could, and should, go in a friendly manner, "like a reasonable human being having a conversation". The US really needs to work on reducing the amount of fear in the society - among both general population and law enforcement officers.
I feel that this is a pretty important part of the story. Here's someone that clearly has real anxiety around exactly this situation and this very agressive move is made almost immediately.
In my opinion, not only is it made to intimidate, but also puts his life in danger. What if he reached for his wallet without warning the police (something I could easily see myself doing)? He may very well catch a bullet before the officer realizes what he's really trying to do.
In my opinion, not only is it made to intimidate, but also puts his life in danger. What if he reached for his wallet without warning the police (something I could easily see myself doing)? He may very well catch a bullet before the officer realizes what he's really trying to do.
Here's the thing: the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter. It's like being stopped because you are white, average size and wear a baseball cap.
Would that ever happen? Very rarely. Would the officer stopping a white guy who fitted a 1/5 description grab for his gun? Of course not.
Would that ever happen? Very rarely. Would the officer stopping a white guy who fitted a 1/5 description grab for his gun? Of course not.
A robbery had just taken place (presumably nearby), and the perpetrator had been described to the police as black.
There is a time and place factor here together with a description; they are not randomly stopping someone in a random location at a random time just for looking black.
There is a time and place factor here together with a description; they are not randomly stopping someone in a random location at a random time just for looking black.
I realize the police have to do their job somehow. But if the subject was a white male, 160 lbs, with a winter hat on and I happened to be near the scene of the crime, I can't imagine the police ever bringing me in for questioning even though I'd fit the description as well. They'd take one look at me, see I'm a nerdy white guy with a good-old American name, ask me if I'd seen anything, and then let me go.
IMHO, this description is practically useless. It is, in fact, racial profiling; that's the effective description. And the officer's knew that when they took it down from the witness and they knew that when they pulled this man (and likely several others) over for questioning.
I would not so easily let the officers off the hook. The worst case is that this happens so often, they don't even see it for what it is.
I would not so easily let the officers off the hook. The worst case is that this happens so often, they don't even see it for what it is.
A poor description is quite useful when used in real time: during a small window of time after the crime, within a small radius.
Descriptions are frequently sketchy like this. You hear them on the news daily. "Middle-aged white male wearing jeans and a ball cap". If that's all you have and don't act on it immediately at the time and location, its usefulness evaporates.
Descriptions are frequently sketchy like this. You hear them on the news daily. "Middle-aged white male wearing jeans and a ball cap". If that's all you have and don't act on it immediately at the time and location, its usefulness evaporates.
"the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter."
Because the description of the suspect is "black, average size, and wears a knit cap." Indeed the description could have been more complete. Whomever interviewed the victim might have botched it. Maybe the woman was completely wrong. Maybe the communication for a BOLO was still incomplete.
But that's the description they had and that's the description they went on. These cops could have been less intimidating, but with the information they had, they still had to check this guy out.
Because the description of the suspect is "black, average size, and wears a knit cap." Indeed the description could have been more complete. Whomever interviewed the victim might have botched it. Maybe the woman was completely wrong. Maybe the communication for a BOLO was still incomplete.
But that's the description they had and that's the description they went on. These cops could have been less intimidating, but with the information they had, they still had to check this guy out.
The description also said 'puffy coat' which he is very clearly not wearing.
Its not just incomplete - he literally does not fit the description.
Its not just incomplete - he literally does not fit the description.
Unfastening the holster means two things:
1) he's making a display of readiness, and 2) he does not consider the detainee an immediate threat to grab for his gun.
1) he's making a display of readiness, and 2) he does not consider the detainee an immediate threat to grab for his gun.
> Would that ever happen? Very rarely.
It happened to me a few years ago. A guy had just robbed a 7-11 and I was walking home from work. The cop stopped me, cuffed me, put me in his car, drove me back to the crime scene and had the witness make sure it wasn't me. I'm a fat, short white guy, btw.
Stopping people who fit the description of somebody who just committed a crime is the system working. No wonder both sides are agitated. The cops get slammed if they do their job and if they don't. No matter what the cops do, certain citizens will say it either is too much or not enough.
Seriously, the only thing I get out of these conversations these days is nobody here should be taken seriously about anything serious.
It happened to me a few years ago. A guy had just robbed a 7-11 and I was walking home from work. The cop stopped me, cuffed me, put me in his car, drove me back to the crime scene and had the witness make sure it wasn't me. I'm a fat, short white guy, btw.
Stopping people who fit the description of somebody who just committed a crime is the system working. No wonder both sides are agitated. The cops get slammed if they do their job and if they don't. No matter what the cops do, certain citizens will say it either is too much or not enough.
Seriously, the only thing I get out of these conversations these days is nobody here should be taken seriously about anything serious.
Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak, yet in this case police officers were letting that decide if this man should be taken in. Even worse, we know that cross-racial identifications are often more inaccurate than the already poor identifications of people we don't know.[0]
No, I do not believe that the police are picking everyone "close to the given description of a criminal complaint". Perhaps they were trying to pick up everyone close to the description in _this_ criminal complaint.
IMHO, this is simply an excuse to pursue racial profiling. In this story, the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description (he was heavier) but they didn't really notice until after the fact and this didn't prompt them to let him go. Then what was the point of detaining him? Clearly for show, everyone in the area was reminded of how active the police were. Again, in my opinion, I suspect that the way people felt about said activity would likely break along racial lines.
[0]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/a...
No, I do not believe that the police are picking everyone "close to the given description of a criminal complaint". Perhaps they were trying to pick up everyone close to the description in _this_ criminal complaint.
IMHO, this is simply an excuse to pursue racial profiling. In this story, the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description (he was heavier) but they didn't really notice until after the fact and this didn't prompt them to let him go. Then what was the point of detaining him? Clearly for show, everyone in the area was reminded of how active the police were. Again, in my opinion, I suspect that the way people felt about said activity would likely break along racial lines.
[0]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/a...
"Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak..." and then "...the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description."
You can't have it both ways. If they know the description they have from an eyewitness is weak, then they have to dig deeper to make sure they're not releasing the actual suspect. In this case, he never mentioned whether the eyewitness actually came along and said it wasn't him. All we know is that we was not arrested and no longer detained. We don't know why.
You can't have it both ways. If they know the description they have from an eyewitness is weak, then they have to dig deeper to make sure they're not releasing the actual suspect. In this case, he never mentioned whether the eyewitness actually came along and said it wasn't him. All we know is that we was not arrested and no longer detained. We don't know why.
I disagree, I think if the description is weak you shouldn't be picking anyone up at all. I would argue that "digging deeper", that is picking up more people, would but the police at risk of unlawful detainment.
Except that guy is nowhere near 160 lbs and the cops should have asked for an age range and a variety of other factors before detaining suspects.
Except the description specifically said puffy coat, and he is wearing a wool coat.
He literally doesnt fit the description.
He literally doesnt fit the description.
You can't take every word literally from someone who just had someone break into their home.
She's either a credible witness or she isnt.
If she isnt, then the black and knit cap part are just as suspect as the puffy coat part; and the cops cant stop anyone because they have no description - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description
If she is, then puffy coat is just as important as black or knit cap, and the cops cant stop anyone who doesnt match all the criteria - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description.
If she isnt, then the black and knit cap part are just as suspect as the puffy coat part; and the cops cant stop anyone because they have no description - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description
If she is, then puffy coat is just as important as black or knit cap, and the cops cant stop anyone who doesnt match all the criteria - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description.
He literally called it a quilted blazer right in the article.
"If they'd come across the actual criminal and he'd behaved similarly (and lying by producing plausible ID, acceptable home address, etc) and then let the actual criminal go, that'd be terrible."
No it wouldn't. This happens all the time to white people. I had a friend who had numerous warrants and was let go by the police numerous times because he used his brother's name. The author is saying they only did this because he was black and I don't doubt that one bit.
No it wouldn't. This happens all the time to white people. I had a friend who had numerous warrants and was let go by the police numerous times because he used his brother's name. The author is saying they only did this because he was black and I don't doubt that one bit.
> If you are indeed close to the given description of a criminal complaint, they're going to check. They have to check.
No, no they don't. Goodness.
Let me break down this problem for you. Maybe a quarter of Boston is black, half of those are men, the height/weight thing probably doesn't rule out more than half the people (and the police clearly admit in this interaction that it's a stretch to say he's that light-weight). At least 10% of men will go out with a knit cap on a cold Boston day. You multiply those together and you get 0.00625. You, and the police officers, together are thinking, "man, that's a surprisingly low probability, only an 0.625% chance that we'd come across a guy matching that description! We'd better detain him!"
But that's a dangerous fallacy, in a family called the false positive paradoxes. Usually we surprise kids in statistics class with these by saying, "hey, you live in New York and took a 99%-accurate test for HIV and it came out positive, what's the chance that you actually have HIV?" And they answer 99%. But the real answer is, you probably don't have it, and the probability is closer to one in three. How can this be? Well, you can look up these statistics for 2012, where there are 130,000 cases of HIV/AIDS in New York, which has nearly 20 million people, so your prior probability of having an HIV infection is only something like 0.65%; then the 1% false positive rate means that your 99%-accurate test has only increased your probability of actually having an HIV infection to about 39%, as the false positive set is larger than the true positive set.
It's even worse in this case, where you're looking for one person. Your 0.625% chance is spread out over a city of 650,000, meaning that over 4,000 people are subsumed by this description. Given all of the facts cited there is a less-than-0.025% chance that the guy they are detaining has done anything wrong.
Imagine the absurdity if they actually worked out and then quoted the statistics: "Look, we're 99.98% sure that you're not the guy we're looking for, but we're detaining you anyway, because we demand six nines of certainty that you're not who we're looking for. Oh, you have a valid photo ID and we can easily check that someone with that name is a professor at this college? Roots in the community? Well, that only bumps you up to about 99.999% sure that you're not the person we're looking for, but that's only five nines, buddy, not enough for us to let you go about your business. We've got to get the woman who made a complaint to look at your face to make absolutely sure that you're not the criminal who we think you might with 0.001% chance be."
They absolutely do not have to check that. Certainly they don't have to stop you to check that -- at five nines surely they can let you go about your business and check up with you at your residence if they receive sudden incriminating information.
No, no they don't. Goodness.
Let me break down this problem for you. Maybe a quarter of Boston is black, half of those are men, the height/weight thing probably doesn't rule out more than half the people (and the police clearly admit in this interaction that it's a stretch to say he's that light-weight). At least 10% of men will go out with a knit cap on a cold Boston day. You multiply those together and you get 0.00625. You, and the police officers, together are thinking, "man, that's a surprisingly low probability, only an 0.625% chance that we'd come across a guy matching that description! We'd better detain him!"
But that's a dangerous fallacy, in a family called the false positive paradoxes. Usually we surprise kids in statistics class with these by saying, "hey, you live in New York and took a 99%-accurate test for HIV and it came out positive, what's the chance that you actually have HIV?" And they answer 99%. But the real answer is, you probably don't have it, and the probability is closer to one in three. How can this be? Well, you can look up these statistics for 2012, where there are 130,000 cases of HIV/AIDS in New York, which has nearly 20 million people, so your prior probability of having an HIV infection is only something like 0.65%; then the 1% false positive rate means that your 99%-accurate test has only increased your probability of actually having an HIV infection to about 39%, as the false positive set is larger than the true positive set.
It's even worse in this case, where you're looking for one person. Your 0.625% chance is spread out over a city of 650,000, meaning that over 4,000 people are subsumed by this description. Given all of the facts cited there is a less-than-0.025% chance that the guy they are detaining has done anything wrong.
Imagine the absurdity if they actually worked out and then quoted the statistics: "Look, we're 99.98% sure that you're not the guy we're looking for, but we're detaining you anyway, because we demand six nines of certainty that you're not who we're looking for. Oh, you have a valid photo ID and we can easily check that someone with that name is a professor at this college? Roots in the community? Well, that only bumps you up to about 99.999% sure that you're not the person we're looking for, but that's only five nines, buddy, not enough for us to let you go about your business. We've got to get the woman who made a complaint to look at your face to make absolutely sure that you're not the criminal who we think you might with 0.001% chance be."
They absolutely do not have to check that. Certainly they don't have to stop you to check that -- at five nines surely they can let you go about your business and check up with you at your residence if they receive sudden incriminating information.
That is all fine if they detained a guy from another part of the city from where the robbery happened.
If a crime happened like 5 minutes ago and you are looking at someone who fits a description who is for example 200 meters away from the crime scene than it is unreasonable to not check him.
I am not from US, but I guess this can happen to everyone. There were no violence from either side and he was checked and released, which is unpleasant but it did not imply racism in any way in my opinion.
The issue is, we don't know any of the things you've said. (A) We don't know that there was a robbery. [We know that someone said that someone may have attempted to break in to a house; we don't know that it was successful or that anything was stolen or even if the person really was unauthorized. I was once stopped by some guy's neighbors because they knew he was out of town and saw me entering and exiting his house; I had entered with a house key and was filling in for a friend in feeding the guy's cat. Had they called the cops to report it instead of confronting me directly, that sort of description might have circulated.] (B) We know that the police officer followed him for a few minutes before stopping him (he walked a block and a half to a crosswalk after stopping his car, and then he crossed the street), but also that he was walking in the direction of downtown Boston, which is where the officer said that the event took place. Given these I would conservatively estimate at least a 15-minute gap, but it could easily have been several hours. (C) The closest house in that direction is indeed about 200m away from the burrito place he was stopped at, but we have no reason to think that the event happened there and not, say in the mass of houses that are 2km away in the same direction, or possibly past downtown in the many houses in Cambridge. In fact the response that he elicited ("I came from Dedham", more than 10km away in the opposite direction) suggests that the officer was not pointing towards some specific house but rather gesturing wildly in the direction of downtown Boston and Cambridge.
[deleted](1)
WTF?
Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
> Barbara Sullivan made a knit cap for me. She knitted it in pinks and browns and blues and oranges and lime green. No one has a hat like this.
Yeah, dude — I'm looking at your photo right now and it definitely looks like a generic knit cap. It's completely reasonable that when someone hears a detail "knit cap" and then sees you, it clicks.
> If you are wondering why people don’t go with the police, I hope this explains it for you.
No. It doesn't, at all. Nothing in behaviour of this police officers even hinted of a wrong attitude. The "white woman" wouldn't "decide" if you're a criminal or not: she would give testimony. This attitude of "resisting arrest" would seem paranoid on it's own; it seems even more paranoid and insane in context of this story.
By the way, did any officer actually tell him that a victim was white? Or is it just what he automatically thought?
If I would go through something like that, I would be glad that police is doing it's job.
Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
> Barbara Sullivan made a knit cap for me. She knitted it in pinks and browns and blues and oranges and lime green. No one has a hat like this.
Yeah, dude — I'm looking at your photo right now and it definitely looks like a generic knit cap. It's completely reasonable that when someone hears a detail "knit cap" and then sees you, it clicks.
> If you are wondering why people don’t go with the police, I hope this explains it for you.
No. It doesn't, at all. Nothing in behaviour of this police officers even hinted of a wrong attitude. The "white woman" wouldn't "decide" if you're a criminal or not: she would give testimony. This attitude of "resisting arrest" would seem paranoid on it's own; it seems even more paranoid and insane in context of this story.
By the way, did any officer actually tell him that a victim was white? Or is it just what he automatically thought?
If I would go through something like that, I would be glad that police is doing it's job.
It wasn't about this one interaction, it's about the relationship that police have with black people, and vice-versa.
If you are white, your expectation is that in this situation the cops would have taken you to the victim, she would have said it wasn't you, and you'd go on with your day.
This man's expectation, as a black man being questioned by the police, was that he has a 50/50 chance of being falsely accused; that the woman who was going to give this testimony might just see "black man" and say "that's him officer". In the article, this college professor was so sure of that that he was going to resist arrest!.
It's not about this one interaction, it's about the culture of fear we have in this country between cops and black people. You're not supposed to figure out these particular cops did wrong in this particular encounter - you're supposed to empathize and understand what's generally happening for/to people in different circumstances than yourself, and hopefully have an impact on changing that over time.
If you are white, your expectation is that in this situation the cops would have taken you to the victim, she would have said it wasn't you, and you'd go on with your day.
This man's expectation, as a black man being questioned by the police, was that he has a 50/50 chance of being falsely accused; that the woman who was going to give this testimony might just see "black man" and say "that's him officer". In the article, this college professor was so sure of that that he was going to resist arrest!.
It's not about this one interaction, it's about the culture of fear we have in this country between cops and black people. You're not supposed to figure out these particular cops did wrong in this particular encounter - you're supposed to empathize and understand what's generally happening for/to people in different circumstances than yourself, and hopefully have an impact on changing that over time.
>It wasn't about this one interaction, it's about the relationship that police have with black people, and vice-versa.
I agree. The OP does a great job of capturing the emotions of the moment. Despite this, many commenters here fail to entire context of the situation beyond the legalities. Maybe one reason why people still deny systematic racism exist is it really takes a person to experience it in first-hand to truly understand.
I agree. The OP does a great job of capturing the emotions of the moment. Despite this, many commenters here fail to entire context of the situation beyond the legalities. Maybe one reason why people still deny systematic racism exist is it really takes a person to experience it in first-hand to truly understand.
My expectation is that if police transport a suspect anywhere, that is an arrest which must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the suspect had committed a crime.
Now, I don't know how Boston classifies "try to break into a woman's house", but it looks like my web search in the General Laws of Massachusetts brings up part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 18.[0] Maybe IV I 265 18C [1] if there was someone inside the house.
Based on it being daytime, and the quoted statement from the cop including the words "try to break into" rather than "inside", it would appear that no crime actually occurred. So the cops circulated a vague description of an average-height, average-weight, typically-dressed Bostonian male as a suspect for a nonexistent crime.
The Internet Tough Guys aside, the author did make a mistake in answering police questions. It should have gone something like this:
The bystanders made a mistake in not whipping out their cameras to film the incident.
But that ideal conversation does not happen when you are dropped into a stressful situation with no notice. While you're thinking about burritos, an armed man confronts you and informs you that you are a suspect in a crime. Instead of thinking about how to resist police corruption, you're thinking about not getting killed in the next ten minutes. It doesn't matter if you know, rationally, that you have the right to not get murdered by cops, if you also know in your fluttering intestines that Eric Garner and Freddy Grey theoretically had the same right.
[0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
[1] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
Now, I don't know how Boston classifies "try to break into a woman's house", but it looks like my web search in the General Laws of Massachusetts brings up part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 18.[0] Maybe IV I 265 18C [1] if there was someone inside the house.
Based on it being daytime, and the quoted statement from the cop including the words "try to break into" rather than "inside", it would appear that no crime actually occurred. So the cops circulated a vague description of an average-height, average-weight, typically-dressed Bostonian male as a suspect for a nonexistent crime.
The Internet Tough Guys aside, the author did make a mistake in answering police questions. It should have gone something like this:
Cop: Hey my man.
SL: Yes?
Cop: Where are you coming from?
SL: Am I free to go?
Cop: No.
SL: Am I under arrest?
Cop: Not yet.
SL: Why am I being detained?
Cop: We had someone matching your description just try to break into a woman’s house.
SL: [remains silent]
Cop: You fit the description: Black male, knit hat, puffy coat. Do you have identification?
SL: My name is Steve Locke. I live at XXXXX, in Dedham.
Cop: No, no, no, do you have a photo ID card?
SL: I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel.
The bystanders made a mistake in not whipping out their cameras to film the incident.
But that ideal conversation does not happen when you are dropped into a stressful situation with no notice. While you're thinking about burritos, an armed man confronts you and informs you that you are a suspect in a crime. Instead of thinking about how to resist police corruption, you're thinking about not getting killed in the next ten minutes. It doesn't matter if you know, rationally, that you have the right to not get murdered by cops, if you also know in your fluttering intestines that Eric Garner and Freddy Grey theoretically had the same right.
[0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
[1] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
> The Internet Tough Guys aside
> Am I free to go?
> Am I under arrest?
> Why am I being detained?
> I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel.
I hate to break it to you, but that's a classic example of "Internet Tough Guy".
> Am I free to go?
> Am I under arrest?
> Why am I being detained?
> I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel.
I hate to break it to you, but that's a classic example of "Internet Tough Guy".
Did you read to the end of the post? No one can actually follow the ITG script.
Maybe if you're a professional lawyer. Everyone else will screw it up somewhere. Following it closely requires an attitude regarding cops somewhere between "Officer Friendly is only here to help" and "these pigs might kill me". That zone on the spectrum for "these guys are cleverly trying to hamstring my lawyer before the trial" is razor thin.
Those on one side will cooperate because they earnestly believe that the innocent do not get punished. Those on the other will cooperate because they believe that resistance is futile in the face of overwhelming force without any form of restraint. The ITG stance is pretty much exclusively held by people who will probably never have the opportunity to try it out on real cops.
Everybody out there in the real world formulates their strategy based on their prior experiences with real cops, rather than activist videos.
Maybe if you're a professional lawyer. Everyone else will screw it up somewhere. Following it closely requires an attitude regarding cops somewhere between "Officer Friendly is only here to help" and "these pigs might kill me". That zone on the spectrum for "these guys are cleverly trying to hamstring my lawyer before the trial" is razor thin.
Those on one side will cooperate because they earnestly believe that the innocent do not get punished. Those on the other will cooperate because they believe that resistance is futile in the face of overwhelming force without any form of restraint. The ITG stance is pretty much exclusively held by people who will probably never have the opportunity to try it out on real cops.
Everybody out there in the real world formulates their strategy based on their prior experiences with real cops, rather than activist videos.
> Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
I can't point to anything the officers did 'wrong'. The tragedy of the piece is that the author brings two sets of prejudices to the encounter that really strongly negatively affect him and his perception of the treatment he received:
1) He's special, obviously not a criminal and the cops should know that
2) He's persecuted because of his race.
Neither of these things are objectively true from the content of the article, but the fear he experienced is real.
I can understand what caused that fear - the constant drip of police abuses occurring to people throughout the US, but it's still a sad state of affairs when a man must fear the police in this way.
It's also disheartening to see him take up such a self-involved perspective. The author entirely fails to understand the motives of anyone other than himself and instead ascribes a set of his own prejudices upon the action of others. Far from simply highlighting the prejudice he perceives he endured, he's actually revealed himself as guilty of the exact same charge whilst simultaneously lambasting those for not understanding his motives.
I wonder if this 'victim mentality' is justified given the abuses certain demographics do suffer, but I also wonder if it doesn't also fan the flames of discontent, distrust and ultimately lead to a worsening of relations between civilian and police. If all encounters have this undertone of anger, arrogance and persecution it's no wonder casual encounters can regularly devolve into conflict.
I can't point to anything the officers did 'wrong'. The tragedy of the piece is that the author brings two sets of prejudices to the encounter that really strongly negatively affect him and his perception of the treatment he received:
1) He's special, obviously not a criminal and the cops should know that
2) He's persecuted because of his race.
Neither of these things are objectively true from the content of the article, but the fear he experienced is real.
I can understand what caused that fear - the constant drip of police abuses occurring to people throughout the US, but it's still a sad state of affairs when a man must fear the police in this way.
It's also disheartening to see him take up such a self-involved perspective. The author entirely fails to understand the motives of anyone other than himself and instead ascribes a set of his own prejudices upon the action of others. Far from simply highlighting the prejudice he perceives he endured, he's actually revealed himself as guilty of the exact same charge whilst simultaneously lambasting those for not understanding his motives.
I wonder if this 'victim mentality' is justified given the abuses certain demographics do suffer, but I also wonder if it doesn't also fan the flames of discontent, distrust and ultimately lead to a worsening of relations between civilian and police. If all encounters have this undertone of anger, arrogance and persecution it's no wonder casual encounters can regularly devolve into conflict.
They did nothing wrong. That's also not the point. The point is this guy feared for his life and that's the state of things for a black male in this country. To stand there and hope/pray people stay around to witness a situation you are helpless in is pretty scary.
> Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
Preparing to draw their guns was probably the first thing. If you want to make someone afraid for their life, prepare the tool you can use to end it.
The second is probably the corralling of the gentleman by multiple officers.
We know that Police officers are told that their primary goal is to "get home at night". We know that they regarded this gentleman as a threat; his intelligent handling of the situation when frightened for his life is probably the one thing that saved him. "May I reach for my id" instead of just grabbing for it. Removing his hands from his pockets... it's not hard to see how this could have gone very, very wrong.
Preparing to draw their guns was probably the first thing. If you want to make someone afraid for their life, prepare the tool you can use to end it.
The second is probably the corralling of the gentleman by multiple officers.
We know that Police officers are told that their primary goal is to "get home at night". We know that they regarded this gentleman as a threat; his intelligent handling of the situation when frightened for his life is probably the one thing that saved him. "May I reach for my id" instead of just grabbing for it. Removing his hands from his pockets... it's not hard to see how this could have gone very, very wrong.
> If you want to make someone afraid for their life, prepare the tool you can use to end it.
If you want to make someone afraid for their life, second guess them every time they prepare the tool they can use to save it. Remember, it is not just black people getting shot out there.
If you want to make someone afraid for their life, second guess them every time they prepare the tool they can use to save it. Remember, it is not just black people getting shot out there.
> Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
This sounds like a perfectly fine interaction to me in this case, and like most other cases that you never hear about every single day.
This sounds like a perfectly fine interaction to me in this case, and like most other cases that you never hear about every single day.
So here we get to the crux of the issue – the author very clearly didn't see it as a fine interaction. You see it as a fine interaction.
That means one of two things – 1)The Author is completely off base or 2)You don't understand why it's legitimate for the author to feel that it wasn't an okay interaction. (Or, I guess, 3 - Some middle ground between the two)
It's easy to say the other side is just wrong when you don't agree with it. It's more of a challenge to say they're not completely off base and that we don't understand their experience, and then try to find understanding, try to make sense of what might not make sense at first.
The thing is, if you take the first path, it doesn't do anything constructive. You've got your side, they've got theirs and the conflict will go on. If, instead, you try to understand where they're coming from, it might make it easier to bridge gaps and find common ground. Worst case, you decide you were right to begin with... but, in my experience, there's often something to be learned from every person... unless you out and out think they're lying.
That means one of two things – 1)The Author is completely off base or 2)You don't understand why it's legitimate for the author to feel that it wasn't an okay interaction. (Or, I guess, 3 - Some middle ground between the two)
It's easy to say the other side is just wrong when you don't agree with it. It's more of a challenge to say they're not completely off base and that we don't understand their experience, and then try to find understanding, try to make sense of what might not make sense at first.
The thing is, if you take the first path, it doesn't do anything constructive. You've got your side, they've got theirs and the conflict will go on. If, instead, you try to understand where they're coming from, it might make it easier to bridge gaps and find common ground. Worst case, you decide you were right to begin with... but, in my experience, there's often something to be learned from every person... unless you out and out think they're lying.
I understand where he is coming from and why he should feel afraid, but luckily in this case nothing from the cops was inappropriate.
To the posters here suggesting they just take his address down (which he said was incorrect anyway) and let him go and sort out the details later isn't a realistic or correct solution.
To the posters here suggesting they just take his address down (which he said was incorrect anyway) and let him go and sort out the details later isn't a realistic or correct solution.
Why isn't that a realistic or correct solution? If you're going to make that assertion, you need to back it up with an argument, otherwise you're simply offering an opinion. While that's all well and good, it's not really informative or a productive contribution to this discussion.
If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.
Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.
If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.
Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.
> If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.
The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do.
I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.
The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do.
I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.
There are at least a couple of comments in this thread accusing the author of lying.
I see some comments here along the lines of 'this is standard, nothing to do with race'
Even if that is true (And I don't know that it is), doesn't it speak to some greater cultural problem that this man was so scared for his life, being a black man questioned by police?
It's all well and good to say "I've had this happen to me, no problems", but thats dismissing the fact that this man, and many others, fear for their life whenever they interact with the police.
(I should note that I am not American, so maybe theres things I'm missing as an outsider looking in / maybe I'm way off base)
Even if that is true (And I don't know that it is), doesn't it speak to some greater cultural problem that this man was so scared for his life, being a black man questioned by police?
It's all well and good to say "I've had this happen to me, no problems", but thats dismissing the fact that this man, and many others, fear for their life whenever they interact with the police.
(I should note that I am not American, so maybe theres things I'm missing as an outsider looking in / maybe I'm way off base)
It's a problem that he's so scared, yes. But this particular incidents paints his fear as baseless paranoia.
This reminds me of something I pointed out elsewhere... I don't know any black people who have never had a negative, frightening interaction with police. And I have a lot of black friends, from teenagers up to men in their 60s. I've had friends arrested, had guns pointed at them, on ridiculous things (one that stands out was a friend who got arrested and roughed up for doing his laundry in his dorm).
"Baseless paranoia"? Ask any black person you know if they think this is baseless paranoia.
"Baseless paranoia"? Ask any black person you know if they think this is baseless paranoia.
I don't know any people of any race who have never had a negative, frightening interaction with police.
This still doesn't make his reaction justified.
This still doesn't make his reaction justified.
> I don't know any people of any race who have never had a negative, frightening interaction with police.
Eh, I can only speak anecdotally but almost all white people (who aren't active drug dealers) that I know haven't actually had bad experiences, modulo "the TSA at the airport patted me down!".
The single time that I've had any sort of negative interaction was when crossing the Canadian border and it was directly because my friend in the car had brown skin.
Eh, I can only speak anecdotally but almost all white people (who aren't active drug dealers) that I know haven't actually had bad experiences, modulo "the TSA at the airport patted me down!".
The single time that I've had any sort of negative interaction was when crossing the Canadian border and it was directly because my friend in the car had brown skin.
I know lots of white people who have never had a negative interaction with police. The only times I have were really when I deserved it (like coming down off a rooftop of a building where I didn't live, drunk and high, to the welcoming arms of the police. Who didn't arrest me).
It sure does: people base their emotional reactions largely on anecdotes from those around them, those they know and respect.
[deleted]
"I don't know any black people who have never had a negative, frightening interaction with police."
Anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon when discussing statistics or topics in general terms.
Anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon when discussing statistics or topics in general terms.
Many lost lives paint his fear completely well founded: USA police clearly tends to kill black citizens because of race.
If someone is afraid for their life, regardless if there are objective measures for it being grounded or not, certainly casting it as baseless paranoia serves to dissuade such fears.
> certainly casting it as baseless paranoia
But that's exactly what this blog post does. It's like this is actually propaganda which was created to paint the author as paranoid.
He doesn't tell any real reasons for being afraid, he doesn't seem reasonable and rational at all. He comes to the encounter with preconceived notions and doesn't even try to doubt.
Police brutality and racism are awful issues, and posts like that do real harm because they paint them as paranoid delusions.
But that's exactly what this blog post does. It's like this is actually propaganda which was created to paint the author as paranoid.
He doesn't tell any real reasons for being afraid, he doesn't seem reasonable and rational at all. He comes to the encounter with preconceived notions and doesn't even try to doubt.
Police brutality and racism are awful issues, and posts like that do real harm because they paint them as paranoid delusions.
> He comes to the encounter with preconceived notions
This is the whole point, don't you understand?
Consider that your desire to see each encounter as a blank slate, disconnected to each other, is your privilege.
If you're black and encountering with the police, your encounter is full of decades and centuries of "preconceived notions" -- of abuses of power.
This is the whole point, don't you understand?
Consider that your desire to see each encounter as a blank slate, disconnected to each other, is your privilege.
If you're black and encountering with the police, your encounter is full of decades and centuries of "preconceived notions" -- of abuses of power.
The appropriate thing for society to do about someone being in fear for their life is quite different in cases where that fear is justified from cases where that fear is baseless paranoia.
[deleted]
I saw the woman in red.
“Thank you,” I said to her. “Thank you for staying.”
if you have a phone, record it, or just hold your phone as if you were recording it
people can feel the gaze of others and you will alter the behaviour of the officers for the better
just yesterday i was walking by an irate homeless person yelling at three officers, refusing to move
two officers were directing foot traffic to keep a distance and the third was prodding the homeless man with his toe asking him identifying questions and telling him he needed to get up and move
by my just standing there i could sense the officers sensing my presence, every so often they were send me a quick sideways glance
the officer using his foot to interact with the homeless man turned his head to see what his fellow officers kept looking at and saw me, standing there drinking a coffee, staring at him
he jerked his gaze back at the man lying on the ground and knelt down and just placed his hand on the homeless man's shoulder and talked to him calmly
the officer managed to get the man to sit up and answer his questions, eventually he got up and walked away and the officers gave me a look like, 'you happy?!' and got in their cars and drove off
i was happy with how the interaction turned out, the whole thing lasted less than a minute
i would like to think that my presence had little to do with it
How should the officers have handled this?
More to the point, is this protesting the inappropriate way he was detained, or the atmosphere of fear for black Americans?
More to the point, is this protesting the inappropriate way he was detained, or the atmosphere of fear for black Americans?
I think a piece of the issue is that, in Boston in December, you can expect about half the folks on the street to be wearing a knit hat and puffy coat. You might as well say "wearing winter clothes." Black man? That's about one in four. 160 pounds ("but you're a little more than that")? Not eliminating too many folks there.
At that point, you might as well just admit that it's an excuse to stop-and-frisk anyone you like, fishing for anything you can find.
I'd hope (but not expect) police to be looking for something a bit firmer, and maybe follow him, but as soon as you're effectively being detained in a public place, you're really messing with folks.
At that point, you might as well just admit that it's an excuse to stop-and-frisk anyone you like, fishing for anything you can find.
I'd hope (but not expect) police to be looking for something a bit firmer, and maybe follow him, but as soon as you're effectively being detained in a public place, you're really messing with folks.
> 5′ 11″, black male, 160 pounds
Is it really a "stop-and-frisk anyone you like"?
Is it really a "stop-and-frisk anyone you like"?
Tough to be unbiased here – I walk through that neighborhood every day during my commute, and feel that a description like that is hardly a useful constraint. Especially in the few blocks around the art school (which leads toward two other undergraduate colleges), you can't tell which folks are professors, which are students, and which are leeching off the zillion hospitals within three blocks.
To some, that may mean it seems appropriate to just stop and question everyone. But, in reality, being questioned by the police appears to passers-by to be an indication of guilt, and that's not something you want colleagues and students seeing.
So, again, if you see a guy matching a vague description, see if there's another reason why you'd suspect him.
Have a rock-solid, specific description? Maybe that's a different story. But I'd like to err on the side of caution and respect – there are consequences even if you don't charge the guy.
To some, that may mean it seems appropriate to just stop and question everyone. But, in reality, being questioned by the police appears to passers-by to be an indication of guilt, and that's not something you want colleagues and students seeing.
So, again, if you see a guy matching a vague description, see if there's another reason why you'd suspect him.
Have a rock-solid, specific description? Maybe that's a different story. But I'd like to err on the side of caution and respect – there are consequences even if you don't charge the guy.
If not that, then something else.
My daughter's ex-boyfriend, who is Ojibwe and a pretty big guy (6'1" and muscular) got stop-and-frisked all the time, for all sorts of petty made-up crap. This is a kid that I expect will wind up with a PhD on interfacing nervous systems with computers, a kid in college on a Gates Millenium scholarship. They just see a big brown guy and start harassing.
My daughter's ex-boyfriend, who is Ojibwe and a pretty big guy (6'1" and muscular) got stop-and-frisked all the time, for all sorts of petty made-up crap. This is a kid that I expect will wind up with a PhD on interfacing nervous systems with computers, a kid in college on a Gates Millenium scholarship. They just see a big brown guy and start harassing.
> Is it really a "stop-and-frisk anyone you like"?
Given some lady saw the person through a window on the screet, do you think that description at all rules out someone who is 5'9" and 145 lbs from being frisked? Or 6'1" and 180 pounds?
That description becomes "stop and frisk the majority of black males". Once you can frisk a group of 3+ people based on the description of one matching then you will statistically have carte blanche.
Given some lady saw the person through a window on the screet, do you think that description at all rules out someone who is 5'9" and 145 lbs from being frisked? Or 6'1" and 180 pounds?
That description becomes "stop and frisk the majority of black males". Once you can frisk a group of 3+ people based on the description of one matching then you will statistically have carte blanche.
It's an interesting exercise to take 'black male' out of the mix and consider just how few potential suspects the whole description eliminates.
Regardless, operating solely on evidence as broad and vague as appearances should warrant some skepticism on the part of the investigating officer, and therefore seems ripe for abuse.
Regardless, operating solely on evidence as broad and vague as appearances should warrant some skepticism on the part of the investigating officer, and therefore seems ripe for abuse.
The 'round up all the black guys' who don't even fit the vague description (which is inappropriate) is what creates the atmosphere of fear and persecution.
In my experience its closer to "or the atmosphere of fear for black Americans" + distrust + likely hood of the application of the use of asymmetric force from hear say.
Extending the conversation a bit to the intersection of technology, sur|sousveillance[0]:
">[...]creepy stalker[...]
Which are attributes usually assigned to human beings, no? Or do you enjoy being trailed by officers/staff when you shop because of the color of your skin, or do you not have to face nor think about such things when you shop or in other interactions in your life? Because I don't particularly enjoy that either, and I'm doing what I can to address it among other issues assuming that if others could leverage information that is already out there about me, maybe, just maybe I won't have to be treated as subhuman by some on initial interactions, or at least while I patronize a store on occasion. What are you doing to address the problems you have surrounding the use of technology in such ways beyond vocalizing your displeasure? Do you still use social networking, webmail, play apps via smartphone, purchase via credit cards online/offline, etc…? If so, your behaviors are telling others otherwise.
I'm just stating that's the direction things are going in now, and for anyone to avoid such realities means that they shall continue to be suspended in a state of cognitive dissonance. Hardly just my "scheme", I'm just a piece in the puzzle that was already being built before I was even born."
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496897
Extending the conversation a bit to the intersection of technology, sur|sousveillance[0]:
">[...]creepy stalker[...]
Which are attributes usually assigned to human beings, no? Or do you enjoy being trailed by officers/staff when you shop because of the color of your skin, or do you not have to face nor think about such things when you shop or in other interactions in your life? Because I don't particularly enjoy that either, and I'm doing what I can to address it among other issues assuming that if others could leverage information that is already out there about me, maybe, just maybe I won't have to be treated as subhuman by some on initial interactions, or at least while I patronize a store on occasion. What are you doing to address the problems you have surrounding the use of technology in such ways beyond vocalizing your displeasure? Do you still use social networking, webmail, play apps via smartphone, purchase via credit cards online/offline, etc…? If so, your behaviors are telling others otherwise.
I'm just stating that's the direction things are going in now, and for anyone to avoid such realities means that they shall continue to be suspended in a state of cognitive dissonance. Hardly just my "scheme", I'm just a piece in the puzzle that was already being built before I was even born."
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496897
What comes to my mind: if they receive an valid ID, they could just note down the address and let the person go. They could expect to be able to get hold of them if the suspicions become more substantiated.
But then, if it IS the actual criminal, he's aware that the police are onto him and he's gone. If I knew for certain that A) I'd committed a crime and B) the police were indeed looking for me, I wouldn't be at my home address. Nor any other address they might be aware of my presence.
So you would give up your home in exchange for the proceeds from a small burglary?
I would just expect some Bayesian reasoning, and "has a home at a reasonably expensive address" and "has a car" and "has MIT ID" would presumably rank quite highly as factors? Unless "is black" ranks so high that it dwarfs all other factors.
I would just expect some Bayesian reasoning, and "has a home at a reasonably expensive address" and "has a car" and "has MIT ID" would presumably rank quite highly as factors? Unless "is black" ranks so high that it dwarfs all other factors.
How are we defining "home" here? Does the typical small-time burglar own a house? Does he care about skipping out on a lease? Does he even HAVE a lease or is has he been sleeping on the couches of 'friends?' If I'm committing a small burglary, I doubt I'm very attached to my current address.
Back to this story: you have to check out whomever matches the description and is nearby. The only thing that the police needed to do in this situation was to not make it a situation. Reaching for that gun was The Wrong Thing To Do because this guy was cooperating.
Back to this story: you have to check out whomever matches the description and is nearby. The only thing that the police needed to do in this situation was to not make it a situation. Reaching for that gun was The Wrong Thing To Do because this guy was cooperating.
"If I'm committing a small burglary, I doubt I'm very attached to my current address."
That is exactly what I am saying. If he has a solid address, it is unlikely that he is a small time burglar.
Not sure how IDs work in the US. In Germany you have to register with the police when you move and you are supposed to carry your ID at all times. Of course there is no guarantee that people keep their ID up to date. Then again, I suppose if mail to the old address would be failing it could be marked in the computer, easy to check for the police.
That is exactly what I am saying. If he has a solid address, it is unlikely that he is a small time burglar.
Not sure how IDs work in the US. In Germany you have to register with the police when you move and you are supposed to carry your ID at all times. Of course there is no guarantee that people keep their ID up to date. Then again, I suppose if mail to the old address would be failing it could be marked in the computer, easy to check for the police.
Now suppose they're looking at a really good forgery and they don't yet know that.
They don't know that you aren't a serial killer either. Should they surround your house, just in case?
I think you need to multiply P(is a criminal) with <severity of the crime>. If they suspect somebody of being a serial killer, more scrutiny seems appropriate than if they suspect a small time burglar.
I think you need to multiply P(is a criminal) with <severity of the crime>. If they suspect somebody of being a serial killer, more scrutiny seems appropriate than if they suspect a small time burglar.
Do I match the description of a serial killer? If I do, then perhaps a visit to my house is warranted. And if I'm a serial killer, and, depending on the method of killing, perhaps they have to believe that I'm armed to the teeth. Coming to pick me up could be dangerous for them. Now, their measured response involves an unannounced SWAT.
I don't see "Serial Killer" levels of scrutiny in this story. I see the right amount of scrutiny, but with a precursor of a cop getting his gun hand ready in a situation that doesn't call for it.
I don't see "Serial Killer" levels of scrutiny in this story. I see the right amount of scrutiny, but with a precursor of a cop getting his gun hand ready in a situation that doesn't call for it.
Yeah I mean why should they assume he has a forged ID? How common are forged IDs for small time criminals?
Not likely, there's no guarantee that the address on the id has anything to do with where the person actually lives. Even if it is "valid" otherwise.
I think he was explaining the thought process behind resistance, if you will. I don't think he is expecting anything except for us to empathize.
> I don't think he is expecting anything except for us to empathize
And this thread seems to have defied his expectations on that as well
And this thread seems to have defied his expectations on that as well
Let's put it like this...
1. He wasn't wearing a puffy jacket.
2. His build wasn't a close match for the person they were looking for (the police admitted this themselves).
3. It sounds like he was driving towards the scene of the crime.
Bearing all these things in mind, why would they investigate him?
1. He wasn't wearing a puffy jacket.
2. His build wasn't a close match for the person they were looking for (the police admitted this themselves).
3. It sounds like he was driving towards the scene of the crime.
Bearing all these things in mind, why would they investigate him?
"Bearing all these things in mind, why would they investigate him?"
They all look alike?
They all look alike?
The officers should have treated him the same way they'd treat a successful white person.
Would they have asked a successful white person to get in their cruiser and transported to the victim for identification? Hell no.
Would they have asked a successful white person to sit and wait for an hour while the victim is brought to them? Hell no.
If the description matched that of a successful white person the cops would have stopped the man, spoken to him for 2 minutes, recorded his identification, and moved on. If he was in fact the culprit then great. They have his ID. That's the important part. Once you know who a bad guy is you can always catch them later.
Would they have asked a successful white person to get in their cruiser and transported to the victim for identification? Hell no.
Would they have asked a successful white person to sit and wait for an hour while the victim is brought to them? Hell no.
If the description matched that of a successful white person the cops would have stopped the man, spoken to him for 2 minutes, recorded his identification, and moved on. If he was in fact the culprit then great. They have his ID. That's the important part. Once you know who a bad guy is you can always catch them later.
> Would they have asked a successful white person to get in their cruiser and transported to the victim for identification? Hell no.
> Would they have asked a successful white person to sit and wait for an hour while the victim is brought to them? Hell no.
I have no experience with US police, but as a successful white person, this is exactly what I would expect police officers to do to me. Why the hell wouldn't US police do it?
> Would they have asked a successful white person to sit and wait for an hour while the victim is brought to them? Hell no.
I have no experience with US police, but as a successful white person, this is exactly what I would expect police officers to do to me. Why the hell wouldn't US police do it?
It's easy for you to say that, because as a successful white person, you don't have any expectation of being accused of a crime you didn't commit.
> "I was not going to let them take me anywhere because if they did, the chance I was going to be accused of something I did not do rose exponentially."
Would you feel the same way if you were being stopped by the police in, say, Sudan, where the race of those running the system is not the same as your own?
> "I was not going to let them take me anywhere because if they did, the chance I was going to be accused of something I did not do rose exponentially."
Would you feel the same way if you were being stopped by the police in, say, Sudan, where the race of those running the system is not the same as your own?
I'm getting a 503 Service Unavailable, so here's a mirror:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151205162353/http://artandever...
https://web.archive.org/web/20151205162353/http://artandever...
Thanks, looks like it's back up now. Google didn't appear to have a cached copy; it kept giving me a 503.
A top link on HN must send an enormous amount of traffic...has anyone ran a study as to how many hits it generates? I'm guessing a couple hundred thousand if it stays on the front page for a day.
Your estimate's an order of magnitude too high in my experience. More like 10-30,000 visits if you stay on the front page most of the day. Many submissions don't stay highly ranked that long either.
I really feel for the person in this story. Given the heightened media lately, it's hard to feel totally secure in any interaction with the police. I don't feel completely secure talking to them or interacting with them when I see them.
I however, do think the police did just an ok job handling this situation. It clearly could have gone worse, but they could have de-escalated this even further. Why isn't it possible to simply say clear statements like "We intend to respect your rights." or "We have no intention of escalating this situation". When it comes to the officer seeming to reach for his firearm at the beginning what's wrong with saying "That's something we do for our protection, and is not an intent to use?"
I'm sure people in law enforcement have answers for all these questions, and I'm sure they make sense. However, something in me will probably always wonder why we as a society find it easier to blog about police encounters, or make police wear body cameras, when it might just be easier for two people to talk more openly.
I however, do think the police did just an ok job handling this situation. It clearly could have gone worse, but they could have de-escalated this even further. Why isn't it possible to simply say clear statements like "We intend to respect your rights." or "We have no intention of escalating this situation". When it comes to the officer seeming to reach for his firearm at the beginning what's wrong with saying "That's something we do for our protection, and is not an intent to use?"
I'm sure people in law enforcement have answers for all these questions, and I'm sure they make sense. However, something in me will probably always wonder why we as a society find it easier to blog about police encounters, or make police wear body cameras, when it might just be easier for two people to talk more openly.
I have no political axe to grind, no agenda to push and no particular opinion one way or another. I simply have a question: Is it important to his recounting of the story to emphasize that a "white woman" carried his fate? Would the story have the same impact if he simply said "victim"?
[Edit: grammar]
[Edit: grammar]
The cops wouldn't have revealed the witness's race. The author likely didn't actually know who actually gave the cops the description that matched his.
No of course not. In fact, him doing so only serves to alienate readers.
The saddest part is that this is not a unique story.
Some number of weeks ago, I "fit the description" of a latino male exiting Safeway after having caused some kind of spat in Mountain View. They "identified" the male as having on black shorts and wearing sandals, and some kind of sleeve tattoo if my memory serves.
I am a fairer-skinned black male, I did have on black shorts and Birkinstocks, so close enough I guess. I was over a block away from Safeway, but the cop still felt the need to creep up on me, then bleep his siren, turn around, get out of his SUV and question me.
The cop felt the need to know if - simple Silicon Valley yuppie me, carrying a Starbucks cup from earlier in the day and a fresh bag of Thai food with a receipt dated no more than nine minutes prior - I had gang tattoos and/or affiliations, asked me to roll up my sleeves. He needed to know why my out-of-state drivers license didn't have my current California address (no, I'm dead serious, I guess he couldn't figure it out.)
Of course, I grew up in the deep south so I'm more than used to this, and know how to keep my head on when dealing with a police officer who is holier than thou and is packing the hardware to prove it to you at a twitch's notice. My upbringing taught me that, as a black person, this is what we have to expect from officials, be it police, school officials, any petty tyrant's office job. This is why you don't talk to the cops and you keep your head down when walking - your skin still says enough about you.
However, even after climbing the broken ladder, fighting my way out of abject poverty through stacks of student loans, it was truly disheartening to see it's still true, even here in the land of million dollar homes and self driving cars.
I've felt this man's fear.
Some number of weeks ago, I "fit the description" of a latino male exiting Safeway after having caused some kind of spat in Mountain View. They "identified" the male as having on black shorts and wearing sandals, and some kind of sleeve tattoo if my memory serves.
I am a fairer-skinned black male, I did have on black shorts and Birkinstocks, so close enough I guess. I was over a block away from Safeway, but the cop still felt the need to creep up on me, then bleep his siren, turn around, get out of his SUV and question me.
The cop felt the need to know if - simple Silicon Valley yuppie me, carrying a Starbucks cup from earlier in the day and a fresh bag of Thai food with a receipt dated no more than nine minutes prior - I had gang tattoos and/or affiliations, asked me to roll up my sleeves. He needed to know why my out-of-state drivers license didn't have my current California address (no, I'm dead serious, I guess he couldn't figure it out.)
Of course, I grew up in the deep south so I'm more than used to this, and know how to keep my head on when dealing with a police officer who is holier than thou and is packing the hardware to prove it to you at a twitch's notice. My upbringing taught me that, as a black person, this is what we have to expect from officials, be it police, school officials, any petty tyrant's office job. This is why you don't talk to the cops and you keep your head down when walking - your skin still says enough about you.
However, even after climbing the broken ladder, fighting my way out of abject poverty through stacks of student loans, it was truly disheartening to see it's still true, even here in the land of million dollar homes and self driving cars.
I've felt this man's fear.
"He needed to know why my out-of-state drivers license didn't have my current California address"
Actually, that's the law, if you've been in CA more than 20 days or accepted a job here. Otherwise, you are technically not licensed to drive here.
Actually, that's the law, if you've been in CA more than 20 days or accepted a job here. Otherwise, you are technically not licensed to drive here.
I guess the problem is that when he identified himself as a college professor, the cops didn't immediately genuflect?
"I was hoping that someone I knew would walk down the street or come out of one of the shops or get off the 39 bus or come out of JP Licks and say to these cops, “That’s Steve Locke. What the FUCK are you detaining him for?”"
IOW, "do you know who I am?"
There are legitimate abuses of police authority and unaccountability, and this is not one.
"I was hoping that someone I knew would walk down the street or come out of one of the shops or get off the 39 bus or come out of JP Licks and say to these cops, “That’s Steve Locke. What the FUCK are you detaining him for?”"
IOW, "do you know who I am?"
There are legitimate abuses of police authority and unaccountability, and this is not one.
I dunno, it doesn't seem like a huge leap to stop investigating someone as a burglar once you notice they're a college prof. Especially if you've stopped them for nothing more specific than wearing a knit hat and "puffy coat," and they're not wearing a puffy coat (did you not look at the picture? or read the article, for that matter, he mentions that he was wearing a blazer).
did you not look at the picture?
He writes in his own words that he was wearing a quilted blazer.
> My handmade one-of-a-kind knit hat was an object of suspicion. My Ralph Lauren quilted blazer was only a “puffy coat.”
"They did not realize that I am an individual of high socioeconomic status, one whom should not be treated like a prole."
There are many clear cut examples of police racism and abuse of power. This does not seem to be one of them.
"They did not realize that I am an individual of high socioeconomic status, one whom should not be treated like a prole."
There are many clear cut examples of police racism and abuse of power. This does not seem to be one of them.
Thanks for the new five dollar word. Genuflect was one that gave me no clues, nothing, even in context. I should have taken Latin it would have lasted longer than my other foreign language choices.
Latin genu knee + flectere to bend
to bend the knee
to touch the knee to the floor or ground especially in worshipThat is a heart-wrenching encounter. I admire the author's cool head under pressure and emotional honesty and awareness.
About a year ago, the same thing happened to me. That night, my girlfriend had suddenly gotten sick and was walking home from a friends place a few miles away, and I wanted to make sure she got home ok, so I ran out to meet her.
I was dressed in a long wool jacket with a nice shirt on, and got stop by the police. Apparently, it was suspicious that someone would be jogging in that type of attire, and there had been a hit-and-run a bit away from there, and I fit the description of the person that ran.
It was a bit surreal -- an officer started immediately asking me questions, including identification, what was in my pockets, etc. After telling him just a glove was in my jacket pocket, he came up to me and quickly felt himself. Satisfied that I had answered honestly, he asked me to wait as a second police car drove up.
The first officer looked back to the second police car and asked if this was the guy -- the second police officer took one look at me, looked back at the guy angrily, and shook his head slowly no in one of the largest looks of contempt I had seen. After that, I was back on my way.
This story brings me back to that moment, but to be honest I have not thought about it since, and now I wonder if I should have done something differently. Should I have resisted? Should I have proclaimed my rights and had them try to arrest me? Was I too meek in allowing them to frisk me briefly? Was there some sort of prejudicial motivation for what happened? Was I wrong to simply forget that moment afterwards, and not attribute to malice?
I have no doubt police target people, due to prejudice of some kind, in many different cities. And I also do not want to in any way dismiss or diminish someone's fear, someones worries, or someone's feeling like they were targeted directly because of their race or ethnicity, their gender, or their beliefs.
But is there a lesson to be learned from this story? Is it a story of a man who felt enormous fear when approached by the police, and how that still reflects the worry many minorities feel in society with regards to the police? Is it a story about how a man was targeted unfairly due to his race, due to prejudice still present in law enforcement? I'm not sure the takeaway from this -- only that a man was stopped on the street, and that he felt pain from that experience. Do I share this pain having gone through something similar? Do I rewrite my own experience and feel pain? Or do I continue as I have -- not attributing to malice until proven otherwise? It's not clear, and I'm not sure how to take this and use it for the better.
I was dressed in a long wool jacket with a nice shirt on, and got stop by the police. Apparently, it was suspicious that someone would be jogging in that type of attire, and there had been a hit-and-run a bit away from there, and I fit the description of the person that ran.
It was a bit surreal -- an officer started immediately asking me questions, including identification, what was in my pockets, etc. After telling him just a glove was in my jacket pocket, he came up to me and quickly felt himself. Satisfied that I had answered honestly, he asked me to wait as a second police car drove up.
The first officer looked back to the second police car and asked if this was the guy -- the second police officer took one look at me, looked back at the guy angrily, and shook his head slowly no in one of the largest looks of contempt I had seen. After that, I was back on my way.
This story brings me back to that moment, but to be honest I have not thought about it since, and now I wonder if I should have done something differently. Should I have resisted? Should I have proclaimed my rights and had them try to arrest me? Was I too meek in allowing them to frisk me briefly? Was there some sort of prejudicial motivation for what happened? Was I wrong to simply forget that moment afterwards, and not attribute to malice?
I have no doubt police target people, due to prejudice of some kind, in many different cities. And I also do not want to in any way dismiss or diminish someone's fear, someones worries, or someone's feeling like they were targeted directly because of their race or ethnicity, their gender, or their beliefs.
But is there a lesson to be learned from this story? Is it a story of a man who felt enormous fear when approached by the police, and how that still reflects the worry many minorities feel in society with regards to the police? Is it a story about how a man was targeted unfairly due to his race, due to prejudice still present in law enforcement? I'm not sure the takeaway from this -- only that a man was stopped on the street, and that he felt pain from that experience. Do I share this pain having gone through something similar? Do I rewrite my own experience and feel pain? Or do I continue as I have -- not attributing to malice until proven otherwise? It's not clear, and I'm not sure how to take this and use it for the better.
Source down. Other source: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33894-i-fit-t...
I found myself in a similar situation, sharing the same name, not profiling. I was asked to come in to 'help with a case'. It was really an interrogation of my involvement. I had the same feeling of uncertainty and the thought I could do nothing to argue my case, based on the continued, escalating questions.
It was assumed that I needed to prove my innocence rather than they prove my guilt. Luckily I happened to be across the country on that day so it was easily dropped. I was denied to see the police report after multiple requests, which I thought I was entitled to.
This one experience greatly changed the way I view police and their tactics. I can empathize
It was assumed that I needed to prove my innocence rather than they prove my guilt. Luckily I happened to be across the country on that day so it was easily dropped. I was denied to see the police report after multiple requests, which I thought I was entitled to.
This one experience greatly changed the way I view police and their tactics. I can empathize
> It was assumed that I needed to prove my innocence rather than they prove my guilt.
This was not a trial. How do you propose to eliminate suspects, if convincing yourself that they are innocent is not permitted?
This was not a trial. How do you propose to eliminate suspects, if convincing yourself that they are innocent is not permitted?
It seems to me that the cops did everything right here, aside from perhaps drawing a gun (which it seems he may not have, only undoing a snap perhaps?) too early. They can't just take his word for it, they need to verify the eye-witness ID. This should be obvious.
His paranoia is a likely a result of his previous encounters with other police officers and hearsay from other encounters. This particular encounter sounds right.
They thanked him repeatedly for cooperation, apologized for messing with his lunch break, etc. This is their job, what could they do better? Not investigate since he said "it's not me, honest"?!?
His paranoia is a likely a result of his previous encounters with other police officers and hearsay from other encounters. This particular encounter sounds right.
They thanked him repeatedly for cooperation, apologized for messing with his lunch break, etc. This is their job, what could they do better? Not investigate since he said "it's not me, honest"?!?
If you are wondering why people don’t go with the police, I hope this explains it for you.
Nope, I still don't get it. Thanks for the perspective though.
Nope, I still don't get it. Thanks for the perspective though.
I think the author was aware of his standing in the community and was considering purposely becoming a martyr. While I disagree with his decision (like you do), based on his perception it may have felt like the best thing (for the planet, not for himself) to do in his circumstance.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
To be interrogated or detained (the pre-arrest stuff) is not benign. It is full of risk because police are sanctioned to use force on citizens. It is especially risky for non-whites, especially if they try to exercise their rights. This story is about what it's like to experience these phenomena in real life. Did I make that easy enough for you all that are struggling to see the value in this piece?
Not to take away from his experience, but being surrounded by cops is always scary. I was never under suspicion for anything serious, but got stopped for running traffic lights or cycling on the wrong way of the street. That was not that scary (no guns), but it is always clear that you are completely at the mercy of the cops. Sometimes stories like this seem to escalate when people talk back. Don't talk back to cops! That is my mantra anyway. Don't argue, don't try to use logic. Just apologize meekly and try to be as nice and compliant as possible.
A (white) friend of mine used to wear the wrong kind of jacket, associated with left youth, and the cops would also sometimes search him, and even do anal probing for hidden pot. (All this is for Germany, mind you).
Also the stories about calling SWAT teams to innocent people's houses, or the unreliability of forensics, are really scary. I think "unfairly detained or killed by cops" has to be accepted as another modern risk, like being run over by a car or getting cancer. And unfortunately the risk is probably higher for people with dark skin.
A (white) friend of mine used to wear the wrong kind of jacket, associated with left youth, and the cops would also sometimes search him, and even do anal probing for hidden pot. (All this is for Germany, mind you).
Also the stories about calling SWAT teams to innocent people's houses, or the unreliability of forensics, are really scary. I think "unfairly detained or killed by cops" has to be accepted as another modern risk, like being run over by a car or getting cancer. And unfortunately the risk is probably higher for people with dark skin.
His mistake was answering the officer's initial questions. You are under no obligation to talk to the police if questioned. If the officer has sufficient reason to believe you're guilty (such as witnessing a crime), he will simply arrest you on the spot and talking won't do any good.
Second, I see a subtle racial angle to this, and as a white person I too have been stopped by the police several times. White police are not singling out black people.
getting barraged by dovecotes but will not remove the post because I think it is still helpful, or at least encourage discussion about the matter
Second, I see a subtle racial angle to this, and as a white person I too have been stopped by the police several times. White police are not singling out black people.
getting barraged by dovecotes but will not remove the post because I think it is still helpful, or at least encourage discussion about the matter
> but his mistake was answering the officer's initial questions.
You know, a lot of Internet Tough Guys(tm) make this claim. Only those who have been stopped by cops randomly (I have, and I'm not white) will understand that this is nearly impossible. You are intimidated. You know that you have basically no rights; they'll just charge you with "obstruction of justice" or "disobeying a lawful order" and throw you into the justice( * ) system, where you'll end up wasting countless hours and dollars before "all charges are dropped". A white person, on the other hand, has a strong feeling of "I have rights". Most non-whites don't.
( * ) for some definition of "justice"
You know, a lot of Internet Tough Guys(tm) make this claim. Only those who have been stopped by cops randomly (I have, and I'm not white) will understand that this is nearly impossible. You are intimidated. You know that you have basically no rights; they'll just charge you with "obstruction of justice" or "disobeying a lawful order" and throw you into the justice( * ) system, where you'll end up wasting countless hours and dollars before "all charges are dropped". A white person, on the other hand, has a strong feeling of "I have rights". Most non-whites don't.
( * ) for some definition of "justice"
Yes, I would expect most officers to take this as a provocation. And the results can be even worse. Listen to this story for instance:
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/340419821/after-a-traffic-stop...
"So I ask them, 'Can I please see a warrant before you continue the search?' " Landau says. "And they grab me and began to hit me in the face. I could hear Addison in the background yelling, 'Stop! Leave him alone.'
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/340419821/after-a-traffic-stop...
"So I ask them, 'Can I please see a warrant before you continue the search?' " Landau says. "And they grab me and began to hit me in the face. I could hear Addison in the background yelling, 'Stop! Leave him alone.'
A lot of Internet Tough Guys don't understand that if you're respectful and kind to the police, they'll more often than not go on their way without any type of escalation. Making their life difficult by refusing to talk to them at all or show any basic respect might work OK a few times, but really you're just going to cause problems. A better response than just repeating "Am I being detained?" is to filter your words carefully against some basic legal knowledge. Not necessarily foolproof, but most likely a better outcome than acting like a dick, as long as you're reasonably intelligent.
One day, in the first week of March, perhaps the 2nd or 3rd, I had driven my kids to school in the morning. While on the way out, I observed a cop issuing some sort of traffic citation to another parent on their way in. This was causing a major delay for hundreds of cars, due to this guy blocking the only way in and out with two stationary vehicles, one being the typical suburban full-time-parent kid-chauffeuring battle-tank SUV.
I may have allowed an annoyed look to appear on my face.
Seconds later, this same guy was pulling me over. The reason? My vehicle stickers expire February 28th. I renewed online late in the month (the shortest month, naturally), and the replacement stickers had not yet arrived in the mail. Fortunately for me, I had the printed receipt of my renewal transaction on the front passenger seat of my car. (The stickers arrived in the mail later that day.)
While walking away, the guy tells me, "Next time don't wait until the last minute to renew." ~Dude. I'm sorry that my timely production of exculpatory evidence precluded you from ratcheting one tick closer to your ticket quota.~ If you're going to be overzealous in enforcing the revenue laws, I don't need to hear any complaints about me paying the full amount and on time.
Next time, and all subsequent times, I will try the "not making your job easier" approach. You can't treat people like moustache-twirling villains half the time, and soulless cash machines the other half, and still expect them to respect you. I know he had an in-car computer that showed him my current registration and insurance status. He probably pulled me over because I gave him a dirty look for screwing up car line, and he wanted to be an extra-big dick about it.
The policing for profit has to stop. Whether its from dubious municipal court fines and fees or War on Drugs grants, the distorted flow of money is rewriting the relationship between police and public. The public is simultaneously employer to and customer of the police. That means that the cop has the burden of being professional and respectful at all times, even in the face of horrendous rudeness.
When a waiter or delivery driver gets stiffed on a tip, they suck it up, maybe post a pic to social media, and move on. When a cop gets frowned at, they swagger up, solicit some respeck for their authoritah, and maybe hurt someone while the cameras are inexplicably turned off. It should not matter whether or not the public gives or withholds respect. Those cops are on the clock and serving customers. If those customers are curt with front-line employees, perhaps it is because the company as a whole has been behaving as badly as AT&T or Comcast.
Just as you may get better results being calm and polite with your customer service rep while on the phone with those companies, you still might get a freakin' Ernestine, not caring about you, because the company is a [local] monopoly and it doesn't have to. In that case, you're better off sticking to your own script and recording everything.
I may have allowed an annoyed look to appear on my face.
Seconds later, this same guy was pulling me over. The reason? My vehicle stickers expire February 28th. I renewed online late in the month (the shortest month, naturally), and the replacement stickers had not yet arrived in the mail. Fortunately for me, I had the printed receipt of my renewal transaction on the front passenger seat of my car. (The stickers arrived in the mail later that day.)
While walking away, the guy tells me, "Next time don't wait until the last minute to renew." ~Dude. I'm sorry that my timely production of exculpatory evidence precluded you from ratcheting one tick closer to your ticket quota.~ If you're going to be overzealous in enforcing the revenue laws, I don't need to hear any complaints about me paying the full amount and on time.
Next time, and all subsequent times, I will try the "not making your job easier" approach. You can't treat people like moustache-twirling villains half the time, and soulless cash machines the other half, and still expect them to respect you. I know he had an in-car computer that showed him my current registration and insurance status. He probably pulled me over because I gave him a dirty look for screwing up car line, and he wanted to be an extra-big dick about it.
The policing for profit has to stop. Whether its from dubious municipal court fines and fees or War on Drugs grants, the distorted flow of money is rewriting the relationship between police and public. The public is simultaneously employer to and customer of the police. That means that the cop has the burden of being professional and respectful at all times, even in the face of horrendous rudeness.
When a waiter or delivery driver gets stiffed on a tip, they suck it up, maybe post a pic to social media, and move on. When a cop gets frowned at, they swagger up, solicit some respeck for their authoritah, and maybe hurt someone while the cameras are inexplicably turned off. It should not matter whether or not the public gives or withholds respect. Those cops are on the clock and serving customers. If those customers are curt with front-line employees, perhaps it is because the company as a whole has been behaving as badly as AT&T or Comcast.
Just as you may get better results being calm and polite with your customer service rep while on the phone with those companies, you still might get a freakin' Ernestine, not caring about you, because the company is a [local] monopoly and it doesn't have to. In that case, you're better off sticking to your own script and recording everything.
>In that case, you're better off sticking to your own script and recording everything.
I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion. You are correct about many things here, but the solution is not to become defiant; that will only result in, at a minimum, more hassle for you, like the officer writing an invalid citation anyway because he can, thus forcing you to either pay or waste an afternoon at traffic court to try to get it thrown out.
I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion. You are correct about many things here, but the solution is not to become defiant; that will only result in, at a minimum, more hassle for you, like the officer writing an invalid citation anyway because he can, thus forcing you to either pay or waste an afternoon at traffic court to try to get it thrown out.
Some people are naturally more stubborn than others. I probably came to that conclusion due to my exceptionally mule-headed ancestry.
As a result, when I perceive that someone is working against my own interests, I will do anything within the bounds of my own ethics to trip them up, even to my own detriment. I want to waste lots of nights and weekends mailing documents in to traffic court, to try to get that revenue-generating municipal summons turned into a money-losing jury trial, with plenty of motions and discovery and appeals.
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." --H.D. Thoreau
Under a government which funds itself by forcing citizens to pay more in order to be hassled less, choosing to accept the inconvenience might be considered an altruistic act....[0] But in my case, it would be purely for spite. From Hell's heart, I stab at thee, Captain Kirk.
If you want to let those bastards get away with their scam just because you can't stand to have a little manure tossed at you, go right ahead. I hope you enjoy smelling nice and not having any parts of your face broken when you go out with your fancy respectable folk.
The cops say "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Well, Cave Johnson says, "I'm going to burn life's house down, with the lemons!" (He says what we're all thinking.) If you want to take me on a ride, don't forget that you'll have to drive the whole way. If you're intentionally inconveniencing me, as as informal punishment, remember this: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." --G.B. Shaw.
[0] Poe's Law note: this is the inflection point between mostly-sincere and mostly-insincere. Determining which is which is left as an exercise for the reader.
As a result, when I perceive that someone is working against my own interests, I will do anything within the bounds of my own ethics to trip them up, even to my own detriment. I want to waste lots of nights and weekends mailing documents in to traffic court, to try to get that revenue-generating municipal summons turned into a money-losing jury trial, with plenty of motions and discovery and appeals.
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." --H.D. Thoreau
Under a government which funds itself by forcing citizens to pay more in order to be hassled less, choosing to accept the inconvenience might be considered an altruistic act....[0] But in my case, it would be purely for spite. From Hell's heart, I stab at thee, Captain Kirk.
If you want to let those bastards get away with their scam just because you can't stand to have a little manure tossed at you, go right ahead. I hope you enjoy smelling nice and not having any parts of your face broken when you go out with your fancy respectable folk.
The cops say "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Well, Cave Johnson says, "I'm going to burn life's house down, with the lemons!" (He says what we're all thinking.) If you want to take me on a ride, don't forget that you'll have to drive the whole way. If you're intentionally inconveniencing me, as as informal punishment, remember this: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." --G.B. Shaw.
[0] Poe's Law note: this is the inflection point between mostly-sincere and mostly-insincere. Determining which is which is left as an exercise for the reader.
This works fine with most non-police, but please realize that police have license to kill. Even if your shooting is unjustified, the bias is going to favor the police officer, and there are many things in the justice system that work in their favor, not the least of which being that many of their colleagues, associates, and friends will be responsible for their prosecution.
If a normal person shot you, they'd be arrested that night. For police, if they're ever arrested, it will probably many months later, after someone in the organization has decided that they don't like the officer involved in the shooting anyway--err, I mean, after Internal Affairs completes the investigation.
If a normal person shot you, they'd be arrested that night. For police, if they're ever arrested, it will probably many months later, after someone in the organization has decided that they don't like the officer involved in the shooting anyway--err, I mean, after Internal Affairs completes the investigation.
If you really believe that police--paid employees of the state--can murder people with impunity, why haven't you joined the rebellion yet? How many more straws would it take to break your back? Do you really want to live in a country where you believe you can be capriciously and arbitrarily murdered by the government without consequence?
> His mistake was answering the officer's initial questions. You are under no obligation to talk to the police if questioned.
I know that this is the common advice now, but I see it as a symptom of the serious problems the US has. The police is supposed to protect law and order. If you're not a crook, you shouldn't be afraid of talking to officers. When innocent people are so scared of interacting with law enforcement that they have to execute right to silence as a default, it means the situation is deteriorating into oppressive state.
I know that this is the common advice now, but I see it as a symptom of the serious problems the US has. The police is supposed to protect law and order. If you're not a crook, you shouldn't be afraid of talking to officers. When innocent people are so scared of interacting with law enforcement that they have to execute right to silence as a default, it means the situation is deteriorating into oppressive state.
His mistake was answering the officer's initial questions.
Luckily this guy didn't act like an idiotic internet tough guy, acted perfectly reasonable, so did the cops, and they all went on their ways. Just like things are supposed to and normally do happen every day.
You have the privilege of being a dick to a cop when you're white.
The moment they claim they were intimidated/frightened, then time and time again we've seen that any use of force becomes justified by police somehow. Just being black means they'll claim that feeling should things go wrong.
Dead right or dead wrong... is still dead.
The moment they claim they were intimidated/frightened, then time and time again we've seen that any use of force becomes justified by police somehow. Just being black means they'll claim that feeling should things go wrong.
Dead right or dead wrong... is still dead.
>You have the privilege of being a dick to a cop when you're white.
Not really. Cops escalate against whites too and are often on a hair trigger. We just have to accept that the type of people our police forces attract as officers, with present combination of required qualifications and incentives, are most likely not going to be the most even-headed or rational members of society. If we really care about improving policing, we want to increase the incentives so that the job attracts the best and brightest instead of the washed-up football players that can't hack it at junior college.
I'm white and probably 40% of my interactions with police have been unpleasant just because those policemen felt like feeling important that day. You just have to grin and bear it, because doing otherwise risks escalation. Submission is the component most victims of escalation neglect.
The "racial divide" is less of a thing than it's made out to be; race is just one signal among many. One thing is for sure though, and that's that the media is very interested in provoking racial tension, rioting, and other "exciting" news events.
Not really. Cops escalate against whites too and are often on a hair trigger. We just have to accept that the type of people our police forces attract as officers, with present combination of required qualifications and incentives, are most likely not going to be the most even-headed or rational members of society. If we really care about improving policing, we want to increase the incentives so that the job attracts the best and brightest instead of the washed-up football players that can't hack it at junior college.
I'm white and probably 40% of my interactions with police have been unpleasant just because those policemen felt like feeling important that day. You just have to grin and bear it, because doing otherwise risks escalation. Submission is the component most victims of escalation neglect.
The "racial divide" is less of a thing than it's made out to be; race is just one signal among many. One thing is for sure though, and that's that the media is very interested in provoking racial tension, rioting, and other "exciting" news events.
> You are under no obligation to talk to the police if questioned.
This is a great thing for white people to be aware of.
This is a great thing for white people to be aware of.
It's not just about race. I am an average white guy, and I'd still find it hard not to talk to the police. The police has guns, and more importantly, has the state behind them. So I'm intimidated by default (and it's partially how it's supposed to be - the police is supposed to commend respect). Refusing to answer a politely asked question feels like an escalation (and will likely be received as such). I'm a law-abiding citizen, we should be "in it together", me answering their questions should help us both in ensuring bad people get caught and good people stay safe. It's a very unhealthy situation if cooperating with police by default is seen as dangerous.
I realize this is a fully appropriate legal response but there's the not-too-subtle component of "who has the power in this particular conversation".
If I am approached by a person, any person, who has a holstered gun and an official looking outfit (or hell, just a holstered gun), the position I'm in is not one of "what am I legally allowed to do", it is one of "a person with a gun wants me to answer a question". A gun is danger signal to most people and the result is compliance regardless of rights. And if you have some place to be, most people figure it's going to take less time to sort out proving their non-involvement in whatever they're being questioned on than getting taken to the station for proper questioning with legal counsel.
On your "I'm a white person and have been stopped by the police several times", I didn't read that the author was particularly angry that the police stopped him because he was black. He was angry because they simply didn't believe him despite his collection of circumstantial evidence that he was not involved.
It was logical that he police questioned him -- he was in proximity and matched the description. Obviously the police weren't similarly grabbing white people off the street in this situation -- that would be idiotic -- the witness said the person was black. I don't think they (the cops) behaved particularly badly in this situation but I don't blame the guy for being completely shaken up.
Being accused, even mildly, by the police is an extremely stressful situation. When I was a kid (yes, I'm a white guy), I was in a parking lot of a strip mall in front of a large chain store that had closed 30 minutes prior to my arrival. My girlfriend and I had just gotten into an argument and were finishing it up in the car before heading to a restaurant next-door and I chose to park in front of the store because I was driving my new car (my first, paid for with my own savings) and didn't want to get a ding from a carelessly handled door on a neighboring vehicle. Twenty minutes into the conclusion of our argument, flashing lights appeared behind my vehicle.
I was questioned, my word was completely disregarded and my girlfriend was put in the awkward situation of having to prove she wasn't a prostitute I had paid for (they took our IDs and asked her what my street address was). Evidently she was too far out of my league for the police officer to believe she was actually my girlfriend! The experience was awful. My anxiety went through the roof (further giving the appearance of guilt) and it was about as embarrassing a situation as I could have found myself in.
If I am approached by a person, any person, who has a holstered gun and an official looking outfit (or hell, just a holstered gun), the position I'm in is not one of "what am I legally allowed to do", it is one of "a person with a gun wants me to answer a question". A gun is danger signal to most people and the result is compliance regardless of rights. And if you have some place to be, most people figure it's going to take less time to sort out proving their non-involvement in whatever they're being questioned on than getting taken to the station for proper questioning with legal counsel.
On your "I'm a white person and have been stopped by the police several times", I didn't read that the author was particularly angry that the police stopped him because he was black. He was angry because they simply didn't believe him despite his collection of circumstantial evidence that he was not involved.
It was logical that he police questioned him -- he was in proximity and matched the description. Obviously the police weren't similarly grabbing white people off the street in this situation -- that would be idiotic -- the witness said the person was black. I don't think they (the cops) behaved particularly badly in this situation but I don't blame the guy for being completely shaken up.
Being accused, even mildly, by the police is an extremely stressful situation. When I was a kid (yes, I'm a white guy), I was in a parking lot of a strip mall in front of a large chain store that had closed 30 minutes prior to my arrival. My girlfriend and I had just gotten into an argument and were finishing it up in the car before heading to a restaurant next-door and I chose to park in front of the store because I was driving my new car (my first, paid for with my own savings) and didn't want to get a ding from a carelessly handled door on a neighboring vehicle. Twenty minutes into the conclusion of our argument, flashing lights appeared behind my vehicle.
I was questioned, my word was completely disregarded and my girlfriend was put in the awkward situation of having to prove she wasn't a prostitute I had paid for (they took our IDs and asked her what my street address was). Evidently she was too far out of my league for the police officer to believe she was actually my girlfriend! The experience was awful. My anxiety went through the roof (further giving the appearance of guilt) and it was about as embarrassing a situation as I could have found myself in.
"...they didn’t believe that I wasn’t a criminal. They had to find out. My word was not enough for them. My ID was not enough for them."
Well ... no. If you are indeed close to the given description of a criminal complaint, they're going to check. The have to check. If they'd come across the actual criminal and he'd behaved similarly (and lying by producing plausible ID, acceptable home address, etc) and then let the actual criminal go, that'd be terrible.
Now, the situation could indeed have been improved by the cops: the 'suspect' made no threatening moves, NO need to reach for a gun; simply act like a reasonable human being having a conversation; call for another officer with the same (similar?) ethnicity...