Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Snow-i · Nov 3, 2015, 07:37 PM

Dorothy Bland: I was caught ‘walking while black.’ Police chief: No, officers were doing their jobs. | Dallas Morning News

This article has Dorothy's original account of being stopped for "walking while black", the police's written response and the dash cam video with audio.

What do you guys think of this?

Every time I've ever been stopped by the police they've asked for my ID. Per most jurisdiction's department policy, if the police contact the subject/witness of a call they must check the ID against warrants, and for proper records keeping.

From my perspective there are several factors that make believe Dorothy is the worst kind of vile:

1. The cops could not tell what color she was until she turned around.
2. The cops did not write her a ticket, and explained the reason why they contacted her and that they needed her name for records keeping. "can i have your name so we can put it with the call?"
3. Dorothy is visibly comfortable with her safety situation, at a certain time turning her back to the officers to take a picture, rather brazenly too.
4. She's an idiot for walking/jogging on the wrong side of the street - if you're gonna be on the road, be on the opposite side so that you can see the traffic that you may potentially be in the way of (especially if your hearing is impaired by headphones). The law in her jurisdiction even specifies this, though the cops felt that she did not need to be cited. Better yet, use the wide sidewalks clearly visible in the video.
5. She greatly embellishes the situation in her op-ed, even recounting facts (such as sirens) which the dash cam proves did not take place.
6. The cops never placed a finger on her, except to shake her hand at the end of the video.
7. The cops made every attempt to be polite, and even to make some light-hearted jokes to put dorothy at ease (granted, those jokes weren't in the least bit funny, still its obvious the cop was trying to be light hearted).

8. Dorothy is a journalism professor. Actually, a dean of a journalism department. WTF? This is what we can expect from the next generation of "journalists?"
9. Dorothy equated her situation to several tragic and controversial incidents, which in no way resemble her interaction either for personal gain or to incite outrage at police doing their job commendably. She ought to find a new profession, because journalism doesn't really seem to be a strong suite for her (and you don't need to take a class to see that).

This video is a great example of cops being good cops. The silver lining to this situation is that the media at large are pushing a video demonstrating this, even if thats not the headline. Refreshing, to the say the least..

BadKosh · Nov 4, 2015, 11:27 AM

Journalists are lying liberals for the most part. They do not connect to reality, but only see things as stereotypes and soap opera plots.

el chupacabra · 02:07 AM

… .

Captain Obvious · Nov 4, 2015, 05:43 PM

No difference than Henry Louis Gates and the BS he pulled a few years back. He benefitted from being better connected and as such was able to sell his rendition of events to the media.
They've bought and perpetuate a victim mentality that chooses to view all aspects of the world through racism colored glasses. Any and all misfortune in their lives is the fault of the world being bias against them.

Also you should always carry an ID when you go out for a run/bike. If there's a medical emergency it will help identify you and help hospitals find your records and contact family. This is especially important since most people password protect their cell phones.

OAW · 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Dorothy Bland: I was caught ‘walking while black.’ Police chief: No, officers were doing their jobs. | Dallas Morning News

This article has Dorothy's original account of being stopped for "walking while black", the police's written response and the dash cam video with audio.

What do you guys think of this?

See below ...

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Every time I've ever been stopped by the police they've asked for my ID. Per most jurisdiction's department policy, if the police contact the subject/witness of a call they must check the ID against warrants, and for proper records keeping.

True. That being said, this is generally when you are being stopped for some sort of violation. Which she was not. Yeah I know "technically" they could have cited her for jaywalking and went there with it ... but they didn't do that. They said they were just stopping her to give her a heads up for her own safety. So the first thing that came to my mind was why do they give a rat's ass about the ID of a lady who's old enough to be in AARP?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

1. The cops could not tell what color she was until she turned around.

True. But they certainly knew after the fact. Can you at least see the possibility that it started off just to give her a heads up about the cars she couldn't see behind her. And then when they saw she was black they decided to check her out? A secondary move they might not have done with an older white lady in the same situation?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

2. The cops did not write her a ticket, and explained the reason why they contacted her and that they needed her name for records keeping. "can i have your name so we can put it with the call?"

I know that's what they said. And if that were true they would have written down her info and kept it moving. But they went above and beyond all that. We can see the one officer calling it in. And I'd bet my next paycheck that was the part that really riled her up. Had the encounter been over with a simple "Ma'am for you own safety we need you to walk against traffic or use the sidewalk." and then they were on their way I suspect there wouldn't have been an op-ed and we'd be having a different conversation right now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

3. Dorothy is visibly comfortable with her safety situation, at a certain time turning her back to the officers to take a picture, rather brazenly too.

True. But let me put it to you like this. I've had numerous encounters with police over the years. And only one where I genuinely felt unsafe. But that's really beside the point. Because when you are African-American in the back of your mind you know that sh*t can get real at the drop of a dime. Just look at Dakar's thread for all the examples of black guys who were breathing one second and dead the next under very questionable circumstances. So while you may feel "safe" for the moment you are always cognizant of the fact that things can quickly go south if you were unlucky enough to come across the wrong "officer".

Originally Posted by Snow-i

4. She's an idiot for walking/jogging on the wrong side of the street - if you're gonna be on the road, be on the opposite side so that you can see the traffic that you may potentially be in the way of (especially if your hearing is impaired by headphones). The law in her jurisdiction even specifies this, though the cops felt that she did not need to be cited. Better yet, use the wide sidewalks clearly visible in the video.

Why she wasn't on the sidewalk is just beyond me. Yeah I know it's a residential neighborhood and probably doesn't have a lot of traffic. But still.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

5. She greatly embellishes the situation in her op-ed, even recounting facts (such as sirens) which the dash cam proves did not take place.

In all fairness, she was clearly inaccurate about the sirens. I wouldn't call that "greatly embellishing" though.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

6. The cops never placed a finger on her, except to shake her hand at the end of the video.

Ok. But she never claimed they did.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

7. The cops made every attempt to be polite, and even to make some light-hearted jokes to put dorothy at ease (granted, those jokes weren't in the least bit funny, still its obvious the cop was trying to be light hearted).

True. But I've been stopped on many occasions over the years. And even in those cases where I see the cop tailing me for several blocks radioing in the plates on my luxury vehicle ... when he finally did pull me over the guy was generally polite. The point being ... a cop can smile in your face and include "Sir" and "Ma'am" in everything he says to you while at the same time exhibiting bias by either a BS stop in the first place or unnecessary ID checks after the fact.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

8. Dorothy is a journalism professor. Actually, a dean of a journalism department. WTF? This is what we can expect from the next generation of "journalists?"

In all fairness, this was an op-ed piece and not a news story. So the standards are different.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

9. Dorothy equated her situation to several tragic and controversial incidents, which in no way resemble her interaction either for personal gain or to incite outrage at police doing their job commendably. She ought to find a new profession, because journalism doesn't really seem to be a strong suite for her (and you don't need to take a class to see that).

Well I do think you are overstating that just a tad.

She didn't "equate" her situation with those incidents She said she didn't want her situation to end up like Trayvon Martin or Sandra Bland or Freddie Gray and the many others who end up dead under questionable circumstances. And guess what? That's real talk! That's what goes through most black people's minds when we encounter police.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

This video is a great example of cops being good cops. The silver lining to this situation is that the media at large are pushing a video demonstrating this, even if thats not the headline. Refreshing, to the say the least..

Personally I don't see anything they did that was over the line. Again, I question if they really needed to run her identity info given the circumstances. But if it turns out that it's routine procedure to do that for every elderly lady they make contact with on the street then I'll stand corrected.

OAW

PS: Regarding the thread title ... Prof. Bland also never made a charge of "racism". She made an allegation of "racial profiling". Those terms are not interchangeable.

Cap'n Tightpants · Nov 5, 2015, 03:07 AM

It sucks when you plan out a fishing trip and catch nothing.

Snow-i · 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Either she has a persecution complex or she's playing the same dumb game the cops are. Maybe to get publicity. I'd like to think the later. While I dont think they could see her color they shouldn't have stopped her. She's not bothering anyone.

She was bothering people. Read the account, the police stopped her after a complaint of a driver who had to completely stop while she obliviously walked in the middle of the road. The police even state that they had to stop her because someone signaled, and she was found to be in violation.

She's in a residential neighborhood doing something people do all the time.

You think they put the sidewalks in for looks?

If she gets hit she wins a darwin award, that shouldnt be the cop's business. They could have just rolled the window down and gave her advice... And why are they asking her for personal info? Sorry but Im going to have to play the trite old nazi card here.

Because they had to. It's their job. They are required to ID the subjects of their complaints. Had no one complained, they could have done that. If the cops had driven by her, done nothing while witnessing her breaking the law, and she became road kill that'd be a lawsuit and a half. You can argue that the law is stupid, but the police don't get to decide. They were following their department's policy. They did use the discretion given to them by not writing her a ticket and simply educating her on the safety and traffic issues she was causing.

Would you want to be the one that runs her down? You don't think that might affect your life negatively too?

I have a walking story of my own. Recently I was moseying down the sidewalk while on the phone. A guy with those big dorky headphones was coming at me head on walking down the middle flailing his arms kinda singing a little. Im concentrating mostly to my phone conversation, not really paying him any attention, so I instinctively step off onto the grass so he can get by unobstructed. As he walks by he turns & yells at me "Oh No! a brothers' coming near me! I better get outa the way, the brothers gonna get me!". He actually thought I moved out of the way as a racist act. It never ends.

Ignorance begets ignorance, hate begets hate. This is exactly why I find Ms. Bland so detestable. How do you think the cops feel?

Snow-i · Nov 5, 2015, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by OAW

See below ...

True. That being said, this is generally when you are being stopped for some sort of violation. Which she was not.

Yes she was, a class C misdemeanor in her jurisdiction. Your statement is demonstrably false.

Originally Posted by Police Chief

Impeding traffic is a Class C misdemeanor, and it is our policy to ask for identification from people we encounter for this type violation.

They witnessed it, and witnessed her doing it to another vehicle on the road that had to stop because she was in the middle of the road.

Yeah I know "technically" they could have cited her for jaywalking and went there with it ... but they didn't do that.

No, they could have cited her for impeding traffic (not the same thing), but instead graciously educated her on the subject and moved on without a citation.

They said they were just stopping her to give her a heads up for her own safety. So the first thing that came to my mind was why do they give a rat's ass about the ID of a lady who's old enough to be in AARP?

Because department policy required them to. It's not an uncommon policy either. They had a complaint and witnessed a misdemeanor, they had to ID her. They didn't press the issue, and even explained that they needed it "to put with the call". They didn't have a choice.

True. But they certainly knew after the fact. Can you at least see the possibility that it started off just to give her a heads up about the cars she couldn't see behind her. And then when they saw she was black they decided to check her out? A secondary move they might not have done with an older white lady in the same situation?

No, it's not possible at all. Not if they wanted to do their job properly and in accordance with the law of their jurisdiction and policy of the department they are employed by.

A) They had a complaint from the truck driver she was impeding, and were responding to that complaint. They had to make contact and ID her per their job duties.
B) They had already gotten out by the time she turned around. I.E. They were already "checking her out" before they knew what color she was. If they wanted to hassle her, don't you think they would have cited her?

I know that's what they said. And if that were true they would have written down her info and kept it moving. But they went above and beyond all that. We can see the one officer calling it in.

As per department policy. Do you think they should have treated her special and above the rules because she was black?

And I'd bet my next paycheck that was the part that really riled her up. Had the encounter been over with a simple "Ma'am for you own safety we need you to walk against traffic or use the sidewalk." and then they were on their way I suspect there wouldn't have been an op-ed and we'd be having a different conversation right now.

Had they not gotten a complaint about her, and witnessed her obliviously blocking traffic they probably would have. If she hadn't been such an imbecile walking in the middle of the street, we'd be having a different conversation. If she hadn't been such a shitbag journalist, there's be no conversation at all.

True. But let me put it to you like this. I've had numerous encounters with police over the years.

Same

And only one where I genuinely felt unsafe. But that's really beside the point.

Same

Because when you are African-American in the back of your mind you know that sh*t can get real at the drop of a dime.

News for you brother, you don't have to be black for that shit to get real. I'm white, and shit got real for me. I was even on the sidewalk when my shit went down, and not in the middle of the road.

Just look at Dakar's thread for all the examples of black guys who were breathing one second and dead the next under very questionable circumstances.

And you believe this is one of them? Or even had a remote possibility of turning into one? At the very best, it's an irrational fear in that situation. Are there situations where it might not be? Sure, but to blanket all white cops as racist killers when you interact with them is hardly justifiable given the circumstance. I'm really not sure how less threatening the cops could be while performing their duties there.

So while you may feel "safe" for the moment you are always cognizant of the fact that things can quickly go south if you were unlucky enough to come across the wrong "officer".

So that's an excuse for running a hit piece on two officers doing their jobs completely by the book? Crying "walking while black" and likening yourself to those situations? I think she's really dishonored those folks by even bringing them up in the same article as her own incident. Those cops did everything right, by the book and by the law. She didn't act foolish in any way (aside her walking habits) until she cried race in a hit piece op-ed.

Why she wasn't on the sidewalk is just beyond me. Yeah I know it's a residential neighborhood and probably doesn't have a lot of traffic. But still.

I think the cops understood that, which is why they did the bare minimum they were required to. They didn't even cite her!

In all fairness, she was clearly inaccurate about the sirens. I wouldn't call that "greatly embellishing" though.

Likening herself to all those tragedies, hell even bringing them up....

"I guess I was simply a brown face in an affluent neighborhood."
No, you were simply walking in the middle of the street on the wrong side with headphones in. You were an idiot, plain and simple. Is it that big of a deal? No, but the cops didn't make it one either. You did.

Ok. But she never claimed they did.

So what's her issue then? Doesn't she understand what kind of consequences those kinds of allegations would have on those two cops and the department as a whole?

True. But I've been stopped on many occasions over the years. And even in those cases where I see the cop tailing me for several blocks radioing in the plates on my luxury vehicle... when he finally did pull me over the guy was generally polite. The point being ... a cop can smile in your face and include "Sir" and "Ma'am" in everything he says to you while at the same time exhibiting bias by either a BS stop in the first place or unnecessary ID checks after the fact.

The ID check was completely necessary per their department policy, and at what point were they ever impolite?

In all fairness, this was an op-ed piece and not a news story. So the standards are different.

There were standards to that piece? Definitely not journalistic ones, even for an op-ed. Leveling racial allegations without a shred of supporting fact other than "I'm black and they're white" doesn't even live up to the standards of these forums, much less a news paper.

Well I do think you are overstating that just a tad.

She didn't "equate" her situation with those incidents She said she didn't want her situation to end up like Trayvon Martin or Sandra Bland or Freddie Gray and the many others who end up dead under questionable circumstances. And guess what? That's real talk! That's what goes through most black people's minds when we encounter police.

And what indication did she have that she would end up like that? Her own ignorance and racist stereotypes? That goes through everyone's mind when we encounter police. Have there been incidents of racism by police? Yes. That doesn't give you a license to cry racism every time your ego gets slightly bruised because you act like an idiot.

Personally I don't see anything they did that was over the line. Again, I question if they really needed to run her identity info given the circumstances.

Per department policy, they absolutely did.

But if it turns out that it's routine procedure to do that for every elderly lady they make contact with on the street then I'll stand corrected.

This is true for most, if not all jurisdictions. It is absolutely true for this one. If the police witness a complaint or a violation they must ID the subject for records keeping, even if they don't end up citing or detaining anybody. Anytime they "contact" someone. That's exactly what they did here. They witnessed the crime, saw that it affected others on the road and decided that it could be handled without a citation, or even a written warning. They literally did the bare minimum their department allowed them to do.

PS: Regarding the thread title ... Prof. Bland also never made a charge of "racism". She made an allegation of "racial profiling". Those terms are not interchangeable.

I think by conjuring images of white cops killing blacks, she's at the very least strongly implying racism even if she only uses the "racial profiling" terminology. Either way, I think you understood my meaning given the context.

Snow-i · Nov 5, 2015, 07:13 AM

Q&A: Former Dallas mayor criticizes race claims in Dorothy Bland case | Dallas Morning News

OAW, you might find this QA interesting for my perspective. I agree with him 100% - he's the former mayor of Dallas, and FWIW he's black.

subego · Nov 5, 2015, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

So the first thing that came to my mind was why do they give a rat's ass about the ID of a lady who's old enough to be in AARP?

To make sure she wasn't someone with dementia who had escaped from the home.

As an aside, never ask cops "is there a problem" right after you've broken the law.

Cap'n Tightpants · Nov 5, 2015, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by subego

To make sure she wasn't someone with dementia who had escaped from the home.

As an aside, never ask cops "is there a problem" right after you've broken the law.

Yep. Keep your yap shut and try to answer everything with either a "yes" or "no". The less you say, the better off you are.

OAW · 08:55 PM

Snow-i,

This case certainly isn't a hill I'm looking to die on. The best case I could even possibly make is that the officer running her name was unnecessary since they never mentioned any violation to her. Class C misdemeanor or otherwise. But even if that were the case there is still plausible deniability which I would be highly unlikely to overcome with you. "Impeding traffic"? Well per the video we never saw any traffic or anyone having to go around her. The only thing we saw was the lady walking in the street. Does the law there differentiate between "impeding traffic" and "potentially impending traffic"? Hell I don't know man. And did the "guy in the truck" even exist? Well we only have their word about all that. Maybe they were telling the truth? Maybe that was a manufactured justification for the stop after the op-ed was published? Again ... I don't know. What I do know is that this is far from a textbook case of racial profiling. And with that being said I still won't say she's "playing the race card". Because that implies a certain sense of deliberate malfeasance that I don't think is applicable here. I will simply say that the African-American community has decades worth of negative experiences with the police. There is legitimate and justifiable reason for black people to be suspicious of police from the jump. And the inevitable byproduct of that is that there will be those occasions when someone's interpretation of an encounter as viewed through that prism will be inaccurate.

OAW

Snow-i · Nov 6, 2015, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Snow-i,

This case certainly isn't a hill I'm looking to die on. The best case I could even possibly make is that the officer running her name was unnecessary since they never mentioned any violation to her. Class C misdemeanor or otherwise.

Yes, they did. They said "there was a truck that pretty much had to go to a stop". That's the violation, and they explained it to her off the bat.

But even if that were the case there is still plausible deniability which I would be highly unlikely to overcome with you. "Impeding traffic"? Well per the video we never saw any traffic or anyone having to go around her.

Really? You think they fabricated that to have a polite conversation with her without a citation?

The only thing we saw was the lady walking in the street. Does the law there differentiate between "impeding traffic" and "potentially impending traffic"?

No, it doesn't.

Hell I don't know man. And did the "guy in the truck" even exist? Well we only have their word about all that. Maybe they were telling the truth?

Seriously dude?

Maybe that was a manufactured justification for the stop after the op-ed was published?

Which they then somehow implanted into the audio of the dash cam video, considering their first words to her were "the reason we're talking to you is there was a truck back there that..." I mean Christ OAW, reaching doesn't even begin to cover what you're doing here.

Did you watch the video, or are you just making shit up here?

Again ... I don't know. What I do know is that this is far from a textbook case of racial profiling.

It's far from racial profiling, period. Thats the point, but Ms Bland leveled the allegations nonetheless and if weren't for that video those cops would have gone through a real rough time.

And with that being said I still won't say she's "playing the race card".

It should be patently obvious that she absolutely is "playing the race card", considering her op-ed states she was stopped for "walking while black". There's literally no other content in the op-ed, other than how she was stopped because of her race.

Because that implies a certain sense of deliberate malfeasance that I don't think is applicable here.

Based on what? You didn't watch the video, at least didn't listen to the audio. I think the malfeasance is absolutely there, otherwise she never would have written that op-ed or cried racial profiling.

I will simply say that the African-American community has decades worth of negative experiences with the police.

That doesn't give you license to scream racism/racial profiling when it's clearly just not there, nor does it excuse outright dishonesty in published opinion.

There is legitimate and justifiable reason for black people to be suspicious of police from the jump.

Again, that's not license to ruin others lives to get your 15 minutes in the spotlight.

And the inevitable byproduct of that is that there will be those occasions when someone's interpretation of an encounter as viewed through that prism will be inaccurate.

So let me get this straight, any time a white cop and a black person have an interaction, no matter how polite and well-intentioned, it's perfectly fine for that black person to cry racial profiling (and write an op-ed about being "walking while black" when it's clearly, and patently obvious to any reasonable person of whatever color that there is none? I mean OAW, it's really hard to take you serious about racial issues if you cannot or will not maintain your objectivity about a situation and say "This was wrong". Allegations of racial profiling and discrimination are very serious and can ruin people's lives. If you cannot denounce Dorothy Bland in this situation, I will have a real hard time viewing you as credible in matters involving racial controversy.

I do acknowledge that our country has issues surrounding this issue, and racial profiling is a thing that happens far more often than it should, but if you can't look at situations like this and say "this was very clearly not racial profiling" you will lack credibility when you say that it is.

"This is far from a textbook case of racial profiling" doesn't do it.

OAW · Nov 6, 2015, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I mean OAW, it's really hard to take you serious about racial issues if you cannot or will not maintain your objectivity about a situation and say "This was wrong".

....,

"This is far from a textbook case of racial profiling" doesn't do it.

So IOW you won't take yes for an answer? I mean I explicitly said this wasn't a case of racial profiling, yet ....

OAW

Snow-i · Nov 7, 2015, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by OAW

So IOW you won't take yes for an answer? I mean I explicitly said this wasn't a case of racial profiling, yet ....

You said "it's far from the average case". You didn't say "it wasn't racial profiling". Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. One means "it's not your typical case of racial profiling" and the other means "it wasn't racial profiling". Mind you, this is after going through a whole bunch of ways to pin this on the cops, so it was hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

But, I'll take you at your word that you believe the cops didn't do anything wrong.

What do you think we should do with Ms Bland?

Do you think she should resign from her positions as dean of journalism at a major university? That assumes you believe teachers of journalism should be held to the standards that they're supposed to be teaching.

Do you think she deserves the public backlash she's getting for her op-ed?

Do you think this impacts the national discussion on racial tensions between police and the public? From my perspective, she just gave a whole lot of ammunition to the people that do not want to acknowledge the problems we're facing as a nation in this arena, and set the discussion back quite a bit. This is a bad thing, and only serves to further divide us where we should be seeking unity.

el chupacabra · Nov 7, 2015, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

She was bothering people. Read the account, the police stopped her after a complaint of a driver who had to completely stop while she obliviously walked in the middle of the road. The police even state that they had to stop her because someone signaled, and she was found to be in violation.

Was there really an official complaint called in? A truck driver having to "almost stop" and waving his hand in impatience, in a residential hood isnt a big deal worthy of police attention. All they had to do was pull along side her, tell her "careful" etc. through the window. Instead they gang up on the little lady bullying her about her information, hands on their guns on approach. USE some profiling skills for goodness sake. Should the cops do the same to any kids playing in the street - something which happens all day long?

Let me ask you this: If there were no cops, and the government proposed adding some kind of security force for the sole purpose of saving people from "having to almost stop" in residential neighborhoods by stopping people from being in the street... Do you think most people would support the cause or say "why bother"? My point is most people think of cops as protecting us from serious crime, yet even with real crime happening all over the place the bulk of their time is spent with petty stuff like this. Cops too often seem to conveniently be far away from real criminals for safety reasons. Lets not get carried away with all the petty stuff cops could be concerned about.

You think they put the sidewalks in for looks?

I understand being a little irritated at such things when trying to drive. But a guy having to slow in a neighborhood due to people in the street definitely qualifies as a 1st world problem. If someone is easily stressed by this they would probably shoot themselves 30 times in the head if they ever went to another country; since cars and people are all bumping into each other. Why couldnt the driver just tap his horn as he passed? Why does the US have to be so obsessed about rules with every little thing? In place of common sense solutions?

Because they had to. It's their job. They are required to ID the subjects of their complaints.

They didnt 'have' to. It was personal choice as with everything in life. What kind of trouble do you think a police officer would get in for not calling this in and not interrogating her?

If the cops had driven by her, done nothing while witnessing her breaking the law, and she became road kill that'd be a lawsuit and a half.

There would not be a lawsuit.

You can argue that the law is stupid, but the police don't get to decide. They were following their department's policy.

I think I will argue the law is stupid as well as following policy like a robot. Policy can be good for guidelines, to keep cops alert, but there's no need to follow it to the tee. And if government 'policy' ever disagrees with whats right (and it does most the time these days), I expect government employees to do the right thing and not follow it. So to me it doesnt matter what stupid rule is written on a piece of paper somewhere. People should do whats right 1st. And it wasn't necessary nor right to bully this lady hands on guns and demand her info. My guess is the only reason they did it was so there could be a record they did something that day since they weren't addressing any real crime.

Dont think outside the box; realize there is no box.

Would you want to be the one that runs her down? You don't think that might affect your life negatively too?

All the time we encounter kids playing hockey, toddlers on trikes, dogs, cats.... all playing in the street. The cops dont prevent me from hitting people in the street. Not driving 50 miles an hour in residential areas prevents it.

This isnt a big issue to me or anything. At the end of the day this kind of stuff happens to all of us routinely and I think we should just brush it off as cops being dicks and get on with our day. Im just arguing they shouldnt have done it the way they did since the issue is up for debate.

Snow-i · 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Was there really an official complaint called in?

The officers were gestured by the truck driver. They contacted Ms Bland to ensure her safety and enforce the traffic laws of the jurisdiction - just like pulling someone over for speeding. In this case, they didn't feel Ms Bland needed a citation.

A truck driver having to "almost stop" and waving his hand in impatience, in a residential hood isnt a big deal worthy of police attention.

It's impeding traffic, and it happened in front of the police. It's not like they called SWAT, they politely explained the safe and proper way to walk on the street. Nothing more!!!!!! It's exactly what the police should be doing.

All they had to do was pull along side her, tell her "careful" etc. through the window.

Holy ****, how many times do I need to explain this? The officers are bound to their department policy, the department policy dictated that they needed an ID. It wasn't up to the officers - they were doing their job. It's not a hard concept. Does your workplace have policies that you have to follow regardless of the context? I'll bet you your entire paycheck they do - this is no different.

Instead they gang up on the little lady bullying her about her information, hands on their guns on approach. USE some profiling skills for goodness sake. Should the cops do the same to any kids playing in the street - something which happens all day long?

Hands on gun on approach? Bullying? Which video did you watch? Because it certainly wasn't the one with Dorothy Bland in it.

Let me ask you this: If there were no cops, and the government proposed adding some kind of security force for the sole purpose of saving people from "having to almost stop" in residential neighborhoods by stopping people from being in the street...

I'm not doing this dumb shit with you. There's no need for that, because the police seemed to be able to handle the situation with professionalism and by the rules.

Do you think most people would support the cause or say "why bother"? My point is most people think of cops as protecting us from serious crime, yet even with real crime happening all over the place the bulk of their time is spent with petty stuff like this.

You have no clue what you're talking about here. Police don't magically know where crime is going to occur, so they have these things called "patrols" where they're evenly spread to be able to respond to calls as quickly and efficiently as possible. While they're not responding to calls, they're just riding around the area. "The bulk of their time". I name you ignorant.

Cops too often seem to conveniently be far away from real criminals for safety reasons. Lets not get carried away with all the petty stuff cops could be concerned about.

This is irrelevant to our conversation. The cops are bound to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction. They do not write the laws, and "impeding traffic" is a law that exists in just about every jurisdiction that has roads in it, including the one they were patrolling in the video. The cops didn't write her a ticket, or detain her, they did the bare minimum required by them by their department and the law. If you don't like those impeding traffic laws, run for office or vote for someone who shares your view.

I understand being a little irritated at such things when trying to drive. But a guy having to slow in a neighborhood due to people in the street definitely qualifies as a 1st world problem

With a first world law forbidding it. How do you not understand this? The cops don't write the laws. Do you know how many people get killed each year being hit by cars? A lot - so it's a safety issue and all the police did was explain this to Ms Bland with the rationale behind it, do the required ID check for any contact they have, and went about their way while allowing Ms Bland to continue.

. If someone is easily stressed by this they would probably shoot themselves 30 times in the head if they ever went to another country; since cars and people are all bumping into each other. Why couldnt the driver just tap his horn as he passed? Why does the US have to be so obsessed about rules with every little thing? In place of common sense solutions?

They didnt 'have' to. It was personal choice as with everything in life.

Yes, they did - else they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Do you have a job? Are there things you have to do to keep it or to do it well?

What kind of trouble do you think a police officer would get in for not calling this in and not interrogating her?

Ah right, so the cops should completely ignore their department's policies and their duties whenever elchupacabra thinks they should - gotcha. Give me a break.

I'm not respond to the rest, you're rambling and I don't think you understand the fundamental concepts surrounding how laws, law enforcement, and the general operations of the police necessary to have a serious discussion about this with you. If you want to go on an anti cop rant, do it in another thread - we have plenty of them - this one is about Dorothy Bland's charge of racial profiling.

Waragainstsleep · Nov 7, 2015, 11:28 AM

Only watched a few seconds with the sound off but if I was a cop on patrol and not in the middle of something and I saw someone walking in the street (isn't that a crime in the US?) flapping their arms like that, I'd stop and talk to them. Its odd looking behaviour and they might need assistance. And you check everyone's ID when you're a cop in case you later get found out to have stopped a murderer or rapist who went on to rape or murder because you never checked their ID.

OAW · Nov 7, 2015, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

You said "it's far from the average case". You didn't say "it wasn't racial profiling". Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. One means "it's not your typical case of racial profiling" and the other means "it wasn't racial profiling". Mind you, this is after going through a whole bunch of ways to pin this on the cops, so it was hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Huh? I never said anything whatsoever about "average case". I said it was "FAR from a textbook case of racial profiling." Which is another way of saying "NOT racial profiling". Clearly there was no smoking gun. I even said that the case itself "wasn't a hill I was going to die on". The one officer doing the name check I thought was unnecessary ... but even that had "plausible deniability". You should know by now that I have no qualms sticking to my guns even if my position is unpopular with some. I'm not vigorously defending Prof. Bland because she doesn't have anything to stand on. What I did do was try to provide some potential insight into her reaction because of the "legitimate and justifiable suspicion" that African-Americans have when it comes to the police. I mean seriously .... WHO and WHAT did you think I was talking about when I said ....

Originally Posted by OAW

And the inevitable byproduct of that (i.e. suspicion) is that there will be those occasions when someone's (i.e. Prof. Bland) interpretation of an encounter as viewed through that prism will be inaccurate (i.e. not racial profiling).

It appears you aren't responding to what I said ... but instead your interpretation of what I said.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

But, I'll take you at your word that you believe the cops didn't do anything wrong.

Gee ... thanks.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

What do you think we should do with Ms Bland?

Do you think she should resign from her positions as dean of journalism at a major university? That assumes you believe teachers of journalism should be held to the standards that they're supposed to be teaching.

Police officers are also held to a higher standard. And when they get caught misrepresenting a citizen's actions they typically don't resign their position. So I would say that's really up to her.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Do you think she deserves the public backlash she's getting for her op-ed?

The public backlash over this not being racial profiling? Absolutely. The racial epithets and other racist commentary plastered all over the Internet? Not so much.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Do you think this impacts the national discussion on racial tensions between police and the public? From my perspective, she just gave a whole lot of ammunition to the people that do not want to acknowledge the problems we're facing as a nation in this arena, and set the discussion back quite a bit. This is a bad thing, and only serves to further divide us where we should be seeking unity.

From my perspective, the people you are referring to don't want to acknowledge these problems anyway as you stated. And it's not as if they were just on the cusp of some sort of grand epiphany with respect to the tensions between the police and the African-American community ... and now suddenly because of Prof. Bland that's a squandered opportunity.

What I will say is that this can serve as a "teachable moment" to gain some insight into WHY Prof. Bland reacted the way she did. Even though she was in error. Those who are genuinely interested in the "national conversation" will participate. And those who wish to delude themselves into thinking that these issues are just a figment of the collective African-American imagination ... and Prof. Bland's op-ed is some sort of anecdotal "proof" of that ... will continue to do so.

OAW

el chupacabra · Nov 9, 2015, 02:35 AM

I hope you're not getting as riled up about this as you seem to be. We're talking about a lady power walking on the wrong side of the road.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

The officers were gestured by the truck driver. .

Okay, because before you said they 'had to' stop because they received a complaint.
You had previously said...

They said "there was a truck that pretty much had to go to a stop". That's the violation,

Thats not a violation actually. They didnt receive an official complaint and therefore didnt have to follow any such 'official' policy to call her in assuming there's something forcing them to follow all policy to the tee. By the way POLICY isnt necessarily law, and it can be entirely written by police in many cases.

Is there a day that goes by when you dont have to slow to almost stop in a residential neighborhood due to power walkers and other people in the street?

So she gestured... So if I gesture at snowi while driving by.... The police can stop you and question you based on my 'complaint' while I drive off...?

It's impeding traffic, and it happened in front of the police. It's not like they called SWAT, they politely explained the safe and proper way to walk on the street. Nothing more!!!!!!

I think the whole point is that they did do more. She couldnt leave until she gave them her info (detained) so they could call her in to prove what? Her innocence? Her innocence of what? This is easily a guilty to proven innocent scenario.

It's exactly what the police should be doing.

I hope Im not losing you to the dark side. I dont need the police protecting me from myself. The neighborhood power-walking lady doesnt need them protecting her from herself either. For many of us we simply arent going to agree on our taxes being spent this way.

Holy ****, how many times do I need to explain this? The officers are bound to their department policy, the department policy dictated that they needed an ID. It wasn't up to the officers - they were doing their job. It's not a hard concept. Does your workplace have policies that you have to follow regardless of the context? I'll bet you your entire paycheck they do - this is no different.

No, policies are always guidelines. I used to feel I was bound to paper back when I had a government worshiping slave mentality - things didnt work out for me as well in those days. As long as you accomplish the big picture goals of your organization you're better off than most. The more you focus on big picture rather than details of policy rules the faster you'll climb the ladder, thats how it works.

You have no clue what you're talking about here. Police don't magically know where crime is going to occur, so they have these things called "patrols" where they're evenly spread to be able to respond to calls as quickly and efficiently as possible. While they're not responding to calls, they're just riding around the area. "The bulk of their time". I name you ignorant.

Have you ever lived in a lower income minority neighborhood? I have, and experienced 1st hand how this works - and whats been confirmed by pretty much everyone at this point.. Some years ago we called the cops when a gang of people came in & carried a car outside the gates and slowly stripped it in the middle of the day ( this was common). The cops were around, but they didnt show up till 2 hours later. This is how it always is when called to low income areas. There is no free time to patrol, there is always dangerous crime taking place. They dont show up because they're harassing power walking ladies who pose no threat to them in upper income areas. I highly recommend you live in a minority neighborhood at some time in your life just to get a view from the other side.

This is irrelevant to our conversation. The cops are bound to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction.

Common, as far as enforcing laws goes, cops go for lowest hanging fruit and you know it.

They do not write the laws, and "impeding traffic" is a law that exists in just about every jurisdiction that has roads in it, including the one they were patrolling in the video. The cops didn't write her a ticket, or detain her, they did the bare minimum required by them by their department and the law.

Im all for impeding traffic laws. The cops are pigeon holing this into that law. There is no traffic being backed up, there is no real inconvenience of a single car. There is no 'law' saying they need to hold her there while they call her in. And cops most certainly DO help write laws. I've written federal regulations before and have never been an elected official.

If you don't like those impeding traffic laws, run for office or vote for someone who shares your view.

Or... post it on macnn... You started the thread and asked for opinions... And now it seem like you're almost angry.

I can accomplish more not running for office, and I generally dont vote either.

With a first world law forbidding it. How do you not understand this? The cops don't write the laws. Do you know how many people get killed each year being hit by cars? A lot - so it's a safety issue and all the police did was explain this to Ms Bland with the rationale behind it, do the required ID check for any contact they have, and went about their way while allowing Ms Bland to continue.

It's not a 1st world law. There's a reason the speed limit is 20-25 in neighborhoods. It's expected people will be in the street with or without sidewalks.

Yes, they did - else they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Do you have a job? Are there things you have to do to keep it or to do it well?

There's nothing I HAVE to do, but I focus on making the company money while not getting them sued. I can tell you generally I dont make the slightest effort to follow rules. Thats all that's necessary for most people. If I do something by the rules it's mere coincidence.

Ah right, so the cops should completely ignore their department's policies and their duties whenever elchupacabra thinks they should - gotcha. Give me a break.

No, they should ignore policies when it asks them to do something thats not right - like Oskar Schindler - a man who'd be incarcerated in modern American society. Government doesnt get to decide right & wrong.

I'm not respond to the rest, you're rambling and I don't think you understand the fundamental concepts surrounding how laws, law enforcement, and the general operations of the police necessary to have a serious discussion about this with you. If you want to go on an anti cop rant, do it in another thread - we have plenty of them - this one is about Dorothy Bland's charge of racial profiling.

Playing the race card isnt the right thing to do. I hate the victimization complex. But Im not going to judge her much since the cops didnt do the right thing either. At the very least it's a wash. Like I said there is no difference with this case and any other case of ladies power walking in residential neighborhoods. Yesterday I saw some kids playing football in the street, unfortunately when I shook my stick and grunted at them there was no police to witness.

el chupacabra · 02:05 AM

… .

Snow-i · 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by OAW

Huh? I never said anything whatsoever about "average case". I said it was "FAR from a textbook case of racial profiling." Which is another way of saying "NOT racial profiling". Clearly there was no smoking gun.

To me "This is far from a textbook case" is saying that it's still a case, but not one you would find on a regular basis.

To give you a light-hearted example:

"This is not your textbook case of shenanigans" still implies that shenanigans are present, but not your average case of them.

I think where I'm having trouble here is your approaching this as if the onus is on the police to prove that is wasn't racial profiling, where it's impossible to prove a negative.

I even said that the case itself "wasn't a hill I was going to die on". The one officer doing the name check I thought was unnecessary ... but even that had "plausible deniability".

There was no need for plausible deniability, because we can see affirmatively that the police weren't approaching the situation with any racial motivations, and were completely professional and genuine to her the whole time.

You should know by now that I have no qualms sticking to my guns even if my position is unpopular with some. I'm not vigorously defending Prof. Bland because she doesn't have anything to stand on. What I did do was try to provide some potential insight into her reaction because of the "legitimate and justifiable suspicion" that African-Americans have when it comes to the police. I mean seriously .... WHO and WHAT did you think I was talking about when I said ....

Is it possible to you that Ms Bland's motivations weren't so innocent? I do not think the perspective you offered applies to Ms Bland, at least not after her interaction with the police. Going into the situation with that perspective would be a much more reasonable position to take, but she wrote the op-ed afterwards while using that perspective to justify very serious and very false allegations of racial profiling which, if not for the videos, could have ruined two innocent people's lives.

It appears you aren't responding to what I said ... but instead your interpretation of what I said.

Well yeah, my interpretation of what you say is all I have - I can't get into your mind OAW, you have to help me and if my interpretation is off, you know that I am open and eager to understanding your perspective better.

Gee ... thanks.

It just seems to me like your conflating two distinct concepts as one in the same.

I don't want to mince words, but it seems to me like you're trying to equate "not racial profiling" with "not textbook racial profiling" - two very different and distinct meanings. I think that you've cleared it up for me here - I wasn't trying to be crass.

Police officers are also held to a higher standard. And when they get caught misrepresenting a citizen's actions they typically don't resign their position. So I would say that's really up to her.

I think she's set a real bad example for her journalism students, and have a hard time seeing how she could effectively lead a journalism department after displaying such a blatant disregard for it's basic tenets. I think Police Officers should be held to a higher standard for use of force & color of authority just as Journalism Deans should be held to higher standards for journalism. Maybe thats just me.

The public backlash over this not being racial profiling? Absolutely.

The racial epithets and other racist commentary plastered all over the Internet? Not so much.

Yeah, it's pretty appalling. There's a lot of hate, stereotyping, and general asshattery on all sides of the isle and it's pretty disgusting, even from a comments-section-on-a-news site perspective.

From my perspective, the people you are referring to don't want to acknowledge these problems anyway as you stated. And it's not as if they were just on the cusp of some sort of grand epiphany with respect to the tensions between the police and the African-American community ... and now suddenly because of Prof. Bland that's a squandered opportunity.

I think any way you slice it it's a long road - a two steps forward one step back kind of deal. IMO, we must come together during the "one step back" occurrences and with one voice denounce unacceptable behavior. Of course, this is much easier said than done, but I think Bland here acted extremely irresponsibly and no one, no matter what color, should feel hesitant to call it out to say "this is wrong".

What I will say is that this can serve as a "teachable moment" to gain some insight into WHY Prof. Bland reacted the way she did.

A teachable moment for whom?

Even though she was in error.

Because this "even though" makes it sound like there's only one teachable perspective that matters here. Forgive me, but there's plenty of teaching on all sides that needs to happen if we truly want to put racial divisions in our past.

Those who are genuinely interested in the "national conversation" will participate. And those who wish to delude themselves into thinking that these issues are just a figment of the collective African-American imagination ... and Prof. Bland's op-ed is some sort of anecdotal "proof" of that ... will continue to do so.

Yeah, see I think there are definitely a lot of those OAW, but you don't have to go too far down in the comments section to see that there are quite a few ignoramuses coming from every direction. I think that if we want the national conversation to lead anywhere constructive, we all need to put our preconceived notions and biases behind us and decide what's right and what's wrong from an objective standpoint. The vast majority of us want racial equality OAW, and yes there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this front in terms of white cops and black citizens, but we also can't be afraid to point to obvious instances of black people leveling false racial allegations against white cops and admonishing them. If our goal is equality without distinction between the races, that has to be the standpoint we operate from, the goal we are striving for and the lens we view each situation from until it's clear that situation is otherwise. Are we there yet? No, but I don't think we should give up until we've achieved our goal. It will take time, and there will be outrageous incidents in the meantime but I will stand with you in pointing those instances out and doing whatever I can to achieve change for the better, towards our goal. I ask you to stand with me.

Snow-i · Nov 11, 2015, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Okay, because before you said they 'had to' stop because they received a complaint.
You had previously said...

Thats not a violation actually.

Yes, it is. Source: Texas Penal Code Section 7 Subtitle C

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

TRANSPORTATION CODE CHAPTER 552. PEDESTRIANS

Can you quit making shit up now?

A sidewalk was present, violating (a) AND she was on the right side of the road, violating (b)(1)

They didnt receive an official complaint and therefore didnt have to follow any such 'official' policy to call her in assuming there's something forcing them to follow all policy to the tee. By the way POLICY isnt necessarily law, and it can be entirely written by police in many cases.

They were singled by a motorist, constituting a complaint. Plus, the police are allowed to initiate a complaint themselves.

Source:

"It may be initiated by the victim, a police officer, the district attorney, or another interested party."
Criminal Complaint legal definition of Criminal Complaint

The police opted not to pursuit the complaint after contacting Ms Bland.

Are you done making shit up?

Is there a day that goes by when you dont have to slow to almost stop in a residential neighborhood due to power walkers and other people in the street?

Irrelevant, and no - because people in my city use the sidewalks and the police regularly patrol the area.

So she gestured... So if I gesture at snowi while driving by.... The police can stop you and question you based on my 'complaint' while I drive off...?

They can contact me for whatever reason they want. They can ask for my ID, and they can say whatever pleases them. They cannot DETAIN me without probable cause, but the cops here had that and still did not detain her.

I think the whole point is that they did do more. She couldnt leave until she gave them her info (detained)

Nope, sorry. You're doing that thing where you make shit up again. The police "contacted" Ms Bland, they did not detain her. When you're being detained, you're generally not allowed to pull your phone out and walk around.

so they could call her in to prove what? Her innocence? Her innocence of what? This is easily a guilty to proven innocent scenario.

You watch the video or read the law I cited above? Clear cut case of impeding traffic, and the police contacted her to educate her on the law and let her go after following their department policy.

I hope Im not losing you to the dark side. I dont need the police protecting me from myself. The neighborhood power-walking lady doesnt need them protecting her from herself either. For many of us we simply arent going to agree on our taxes being spent this way.

Then vote to have the law changed. But it is a law that she violated. I cited it for you right up there at the top. You done making shit up?

No, policies are always guidelines.

Yeah, but that law I cited for you up there is a law. And the department policies dictate how the police respond to people who break said laws. Again, you done making shit up here? Your premise has been refuted.

I used to feel I was bound to paper back when I had a government worshiping slave mentality - things didnt work out for me as well in those days. As long as you accomplish the big picture goals of your organization you're better off than most. The more you focus on big picture rather than details of policy rules the faster you'll climb the ladder, thats how it works.

I can tell you've never worked for a real company before, considering violation of HR policies and failure to adhere to your job's "guidelines" is a quick way to get fired. Sure, focusing on the big picture is important, so long as you follow the policies your superiors have set forth for you.

Have you ever lived in a lower income minority neighborhood?

Yes

I have, and experienced 1st hand how this works - and whats been confirmed by pretty much everyone at this point.. Some years ago we called the cops when a gang of people came in & carried a car outside the gates and slowly stripped it in the middle of the day ( this was common). The cops were around, but they didnt show up till 2 hours later.

Your anecdote is irrelevant here.

This is how it always is when called to low income areas. There is no free time to patrol, there is always dangerous crime taking place.

First, that neighborhood wasn't low income and Second, you're making shit up again.

They dont show up because they're harassing power walking ladies who pose no threat to them in upper income areas. I highly recommend you live in a minority neighborhood at some time in your life just to get a view from the other side.

I've spent a great deal of time living and working in low income/high minority areas. When I lived in PG county, it was #3 in the nation for armed robbery per capita. Still, plenty of cops on patrol.

Common, as far as enforcing laws goes, cops go for lowest hanging fruit and you know it.

Again, making shit up.

Im all for impeding traffic laws. The cops are pigeon holing this into that law. There is no traffic being backed up, there is no real inconvenience of a single car. There is no 'law' saying they need to hold her there while they call her in.

Yes, there is. I cited it for you up there at the top. Go have a read!

And cops most certainly DO help write laws.

They might be consulted by lawmakers, but those two cops are far, far, far from that process.

I've written federal regulations before and have never been an elected official.

Federal regulations are not laws. They may have force of law behind them, but they themselves are not laws. You know what is a law? Sec. 552.006 of Texas Penal Code Section 7 Subtitle C. Bonafide law.

Or... post it on macnn... You started the thread and asked for opinions... And now it seem like you're almost angry.

I'm frustrated with you because you've made several statements of fact that are demonstratably false, then using this FUD to make asinine comments about how the police shouldn't be doing their jobs because you don't feel they should, all the while derailing this thread from it's topic. Not once have you commented on Dorothy Bland's charge of racism, you've simply picked apart what the cops did while stating "there's no law she violated" when it's very, very, very clear that there is. You can't accept the basic premise of the thread, and therefore scored a 0 on giving your opinion for Ms Bland's op-ed flaming the cops for doing their jobs. You can't agree that that's what they were doing or trying to do, and therefore you've gotten a response that reflects just how little you've added to the topic.

I can accomplish more not running for office, and I generally dont vote either.

Then don't complain about the laws with which you have no interest in helping shape. If you don't like it, then vote. If you don't want to vote, don't complain when you don't like the outcome.

It's not a 1st world law. There's a reason the speed limit is 20-25 in neighborhoods. It's expected people will be in the street with or without sidewalks.

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

I'm really not sure how else to get this through to you.

There's nothing I HAVE to do, but I focus on making the company money while not getting them sued.

While ignoring your HR policies and doing whatever you think you should? Right

that's a great way to not get the company sued.

I can tell you generally I dont make the slightest effort to follow rules. Thats all that's necessary for most people. If I do something by the rules it's mere coincidence.

Again,

I call bullshit.

No, they should ignore policies when it asks them to do something thats not right - like Oskar Schindler - a man who'd be incarcerated in modern American society.

Yeah so police should ignore their job duties as well as the laws they were hired to enforce because Dorothy Bland should be able to walk in the middle of the road whenever she wants, and no one is allowed to inform her of the law, the safety issues, or how she can make the neighborhood a better place for pedestrians and cars alike.

Government doesnt get to decide right & wrong.

Elected officials in the legislative body (i.e. the government) don't get to decide right and wrong, but they do get to decide laws. Laws like:

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

Playing the race card isnt the right thing to do.

Ahhh finally!!!! We can talk about the topic of the thread.

I hate the victimization complex.

Do you think Ms Bland was displaying the victimization complex?

But Im not going to judge her much since the cops didnt do the right thing either.

Ah shit, we were so close.

At the very least it's a wash. Like I said there is no difference with this case and any other case of ladies power walking in residential neighborhoods. Yesterday I saw some kids playing football in the street, unfortunately when I shook my stick and grunted at them there was no police to witness.

Just one last time, so that maybe on the next go around we can talk directly about the thread topic, and not it's premise.

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

OAW · Nov 11, 2015, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Yeah, see I think there are definitely a lot of those OAW, but you don't have to go too far down in the comments section to see that there are quite a few ignoramuses coming from every direction. I think that if we want the national conversation to lead anywhere constructive, we all need to put our preconceived notions and biases behind us and decide what's right and what's wrong from an objective standpoint. The vast majority of us want racial equality OAW, and yes there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this front in terms of white cops and black citizens, but we also can't be afraid to point to obvious instances of black people leveling false racial allegations against white cops and admonishing them. If our goal is equality without distinction between the races, that has to be the standpoint we operate from, the goal we are striving for and the lens we view each situation from until it's clear that situation is otherwise. Are we there yet? No, but I don't think we should give up until we've achieved our goal. It will take time, and there will be outrageous incidents in the meantime but I will stand with you in pointing those instances out and doing whatever I can to achieve change for the better, towards our goal. I ask you to stand with me.

OAW

Waragainstsleep · Nov 14, 2015, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

In the US we are considered innocent of rape and murder until proven guilty. In any case the probability of this neighborhood lady being a rapist/murderer is less than you being a terrorist (which is quite low), and Im sure you wouldnt like extra excuses to be put into place to make sure you're not a terist every time you have a run in with the cops.

Checking someones ID is hardly comparable to locking them up without due process.

el chupacabra · 02:04 AM

… .

Snow-i · Nov 15, 2015, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Your whole post deserves a smackdown award if I've ever seen one. The sheer craftiness, the whole structure, to accomplish an agenda so well. You've managed to fit "making shit up" in there 5 times and the sidewalk law 4 times, to really school me in drilling the point home.

It's important that we get the facts straight if we're going to make a judgement on the actions of the police here. I referred to that law each time you invoked that there was none, which was pretty much your whole post. Sorry if it came across as a smack down.

Paint me shocked such a idiotic law exists (but not really), looks like it's fairly recent and a bit of research shows it's mostly used as an excuse for cops to stop people at random for whatever they want.

Those types of laws are extremely common, and they result from the massive numbers of people maimed and killed by being hit by cars. Are they sometimes overkill? Sure, but I think the cops in this example recognized that and did everything they could to make their contact with Ms bland a positive thing. I don't think they stopped her to be punitive or to hassle her beyond saying "hey, walk on the sidewalk - we've scraped a shit ton of people out of the middle of the road and it'd be better for everyone if you followed the traffic laws".

Either way it's irrelevant because your whole argument has been hanging on the threads that they did this by the book and they had to do it exactly as they did because a policy or law says it somewhere.

Wait, so they did it by the book and my argument is hanging by a thread? Which is it? Show me where they did anything unnecessary or undue. You act as if the cops have some obligation to disappear completely unless, in El Chupacabra's mind and regardless of laws or department policy, some kind of interaction is necessary.

Meanwhile they never cited to her such a law as a reason for stopping her.

Yeah they did - they explained that she needed to at the very least walk on the opposite side of the road. They were being reasonable and trying to be constructive. How you miss this is beyond me - it feels like you've got some sort of anti authority/anti cop complex that's making you refuse to admit that the cops were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

In fact according to what you just posted they go on to instruct her to break the law by walking on the other side of the street instead of the sidewalk...

So you're going to use the cops' reasonable discretion here against me? Nice. You're right, the cops were completely reasonable and therefore my argument falls apart.

This whole debate has been the bureaucracy says this the bureaucracy forces that. Seems the cops dont know of this sidewalk law either, but you claim they did their jobs because they did it all by the book.

What? It seems they know very well what the law was - otherwise they wouldn't have contacted Ms Bland. You're reaching here, bro and its painfully obvious.

Your 1st argument was they received an official complaint forcing them to pursue this to the end.

Citation please. I never said they received an "official complaint" because such a thing does not exist. I even cited the widely accepted legal definition of "complaint" for you. You miss that link?

Now it's that they can make the choice to initiate a complaint themselves.

Whichever way you want to spin it, man. You're delving into semantics to save face here, and I think it's pretty clear that the cops were well within their rights and within their duties.

Which will now force them to call her in since they've now made the choice to make it an official complaint...

Again, making shit up. Whats the difference between an "official complaint" and a "complaint"? By your definition, please don't let well established legal definitions get in your way here.

Cops talk to people all the time without calling them in.

People who break the law? Citation please.

Whats most silly about the whole thing is they dont even have an official ID to check.

Right, because they were trying to be completely reasonable and trust Ms Bland at her word without and not making the situation anymore than it had to be. They needed a name for their call because their job duties demanded as much. How does this concept elude you? It's pretty simple man.

A real criminal could make up any name and birth date! This is hilarious.

So you admit they weren't treating Ms Bland as a criminal? Thanks for making my argument for me.

There's nothing official about this.

What does that even mean? Define official, and what you mean by it.

The book can be used as an excuse but there is very little by-the-book here. They're just stopping her to have a record they were 'working' while dozens of burglaries, assaults, hold-ups are likely going on in more dangerous areas. It couldn't be more obvious.

Holy **** dude, I can't help you, and at this point I doubt we're gonna get you to a point where you're capable of discussing the thread topic. Got it, you hate cops, laws, and have no concept of the reality of a patrol-cops duties. Noted, guess we'll have call it a day here.

stop making shit up?
In suburban neighborhoods people walk mostly in the street no matter where you live in the country. They rarely get stopped by police.

Again, cite your shit bro. You can't, because you're just guessing at what you think it ought to be like, or how you experienced growing up in a neighborhood. I sincerely doubt had Ms Bland not been flapping in the wind, blocking the truck from going past here, that the cops would even have bothered looking out for her safety.

You've called the cops out for less in other threads.

For less? No, I've called the cops out that have deserved it, or at least indicated a need for a more thorough inspection.

I am extremely anti-bad cop, but at the same time believe we must stand behind the good ones and encourage them over the bad. There's nothing worse than a cop who abuses his authority, and nothing better than one who uses it to better the lives of the people in his patrol area. Seems to me the concept of a "good cop" is completely off the table for you.

Dictionary.com detain = to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay. They detained her. She couldnt walk away without their permission = detained.

Ok bud, cite dictionary.com when attempting to describe a legal definition

You're out of your league here, and trying to move this discussion somewhere fruitful is appearing more and more futile.

You're quick to tell me again Im making shit up but then claim the cops educated her on the law. I can play this childish game too even though I really dont want to...

Which mark in the video did they do this since they never told her to use the sidewalk, according to what you just posted? Where did they even mention any law whatsoever? Looks to me like they specifically told her to break the law as their solution, according to the law you posted.

Again,

It's all there for you bro, put it together yourself.

Actually you didnt... Feel free to educate dumb 'Ol chupacabra on the law saying they must call in every person they talk to.

I can't help you. I'm done here man. It's all there for you, if you choose to enlighten yourself but it's readily apparent you've got no intention of understanding how the police in the US operate on a daily basis.

To say Bland's charge of racism goes with her interaction with police is an understatement. They are 1 and the exact same topic. This is all based on a video you posted showing a 3 min interaction with police. My "picking apart what the cops did" comments are based on the video you posed which this is all about.

From a perspective completely lacking any understanding of what the police are supposed to do. Need I remind that you said on multiple occasions that Ms bland didn't break any laws? As a statement of fact? I'm not sure you're interested in an honest conversation about this.

It's not like her charge of racism is really that big of a deal any more than the cops unprofessionalism.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

This whole thing will be forgotten shortly.

Thankfully, the video was there so yeah, it will be.

Im sorry "I can't agree" lol. Please give me at least 1 point!
The thing is you're pulling a 180 because you're so against Ms. Bland here.

How's that a 180? and what's wrong with admonishing Ms Bland for running a hit piece on cops that were simply looking out for her and her community?

No points.

Like I said, you've given various examples in the past and ridiculed cops for less in other threads including experiences you've had.

That are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Those cops are not these cops.

But in this thread, when cops are slightly ridiculed, a strong defense of cops have done no wrong. Her charge of racism is silly, nothing more. It hurts HER more than anyone else.

Yeah, because of the video. Without it, what do you think would happen El Chup?

Well I generally try not to complain and I dont think Im complaining here - just stating how it is. While I'd prefer the cops deal with serious crime before pretty crime, I cant really complain. They are doing about what I'd expect them to do ( I dont have high expectations concerning how low they get paid etc ). Voting isn't doing much to participate in government. My philosophy is to adapt to the system around you since you can't count on 300 million to vote in the right people (assuming such a thing exists). You can have a lot of control over certain aspects of society without casting a single vote if you play your cards right.

you're above the process eh?

My advise to Ms. Bland would be to just accept that this is the way it is and deal with it. The important take away from all this is Bland was smart, she didn't get riled up, or challenge the cops, she knew her place in the face of predators.

:roll eyes: I really think this has nothing to do with the video you watched, and everything to do with your own biases against the police. This is exactly what OAW and I were talking about in terms of ignorance and it's impact on the conversation.

And because of that she lived to breath another day.

Drama much?

On top of that she escaped the whole situation in just 3 minutes.

Lucky her!

Im ashamed at all the people calling for her to be fired. Last thing we need is more people on social programs. If she made a false accusation then she already learned her lesson.

:roll eyes:

This is probably my last post on this. I dont disagree strongly enough or believe the issue is serious enough to be worth much more argument.

We'll agree to disagree, Chup.

andi*pandi · Nov 15, 2015, 03:13 PM

If you are walking in the street, perhaps in a place without a sidewalk, you are taught to walk against traffic. This makes it easier for both you and the driver to see each other. Bicycles and other things with wheels are supposed to ride with traffic.

Kids are taught this. Everyone should know this.

Do I always do this? In my quiet neighborhood, where sidewalks are sporadic or blocked with cars*, not always, no. But if a cop came up and recommended I walk on the other side of the street I'd know it for good advice and thank em for it. And maybe tomorrow do the same thing I always have, but not write an op-ed about how I was oppressed for being told common sense.

*Why do they make driveways only 1 3/4 car lengths long?

Snow-i · Nov 17, 2015, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

If you are walking in the street, perhaps in a place without a sidewalk, you are taught to walk against traffic. This makes it easier for both you and the driver to see each other. Bicycles and other things with wheels are supposed to ride with traffic.

Kids are taught this. Everyone should know this.

Do I always do this? In my quiet neighborhood, where sidewalks are sporadic or blocked with cars*, not always, no. But if a cop came up and recommended I walk on the other side of the street I'd know it for good advice and thank em for it. And maybe tomorrow do the same thing I always have, but not write an op-ed about how I was oppressed for being told common sense.

exactly

Cap'n Tightpants · Nov 17, 2015, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

Do I always do this? In my quiet neighborhood, where sidewalks are sporadic or blocked with cars*, not always, no. But if a cop came up and recommended I walk on the other side of the street I'd know it for good advice and thank em for it. And maybe tomorrow do the same thing I always have, but not write an op-ed about how I was oppressed for being told common sense.

Well, that's because you have common sense, which is quite uncommon anymore (in fact it's more on the order of a superpower now).

OAW · 06:23 PM

Snow-i ....

Now this situation bothers me a LOT more than the Prof. Bland incident ...

On Sept. 6, I locked myself out of my apartment in Santa Monica, Calif. I was in a rush to get to my weekly soccer game, so I decided to go enjoy the game and deal with the lock afterward.

A few hours and a visit from a locksmith later, I was inside my apartment and slipping off my shoes when I heard a man’s voice and what sounded like a small dog whimpering outside, near my front window. I imagined a loiterer and opened the door to move him along. I was surprised to see a large dog halfway up the staircase to my door. I stepped back inside, closed the door and locked it.

I heard barking. I approached my front window and loudly asked what was going on. Peering through my blinds, I saw a gun. A man stood at the bottom of the stairs, pointing it at me. I stepped back and heard: “Come outside with your hands up.” I thought: This man has a gun and will kill me if I don’t come outside. At the same time, I thought: I’ve heard this line from policemen in movies. Although he didn’t identify himself, perhaps he’s an officer.

I left my apartment in my socks, shorts and a light jacket, my hands in the air. “What’s going on?” I asked again. Two police officers had guns trained on me. They shouted: “Who’s in there with you? How many of you are there?”

I said it was only me and, hands still raised, slowly descended the stairs, focused on one officer’s eyes and on his pistol. I had never looked down the barrel of a gun or at the face of a man with a loaded weapon pointed at me. In his eyes, I saw fear and anger. I had no idea what was happening, but I saw how it would end: I would be dead in the stairwell outside my apartment, because something about me — a 5-foot-7, 125-pound black woman — frightened this man with a gun. I sat down, trying to look even less threatening, trying to de-escalate. I again asked what was going on. I confirmed there were no pets or people inside.

I told the officers I didn’t want them in my apartment. I said they had no right to be there. They entered anyway. One pulled me, hands behind my back, out to the street. The neighbors were watching. Only then did I notice the ocean of officers. I counted 16. They still hadn’t told me why they’d come.

Later, I learned that the Santa Monica Police Department had dispatched 19 officers after one of my neighbors reported a burglary at my apartment. It didn’t matter that I told the cops I’d lived there for seven months, told them about the locksmith, offered to show a receipt for his services and my ID. It didn’t matter that I went to Duke, that I have an MBA from Dartmouth, that I’m a vice president of strategy at a multinational corporation. It didn’t matter that I’ve never had so much as a speeding ticket. It didn’t matter that I calmly, continually asked them what was happening. It also didn’t matter that I didn’t match the description of the person they were looking for — my neighbor described me as Hispanic when he called 911. What mattered was that I was a woman of color trying to get into her apartment — in an almost entirely white apartment complex in a mostly white city — and a white man who lived in another building called the cops because he’d never seen me before.

After the officers and dog exited my “cleared” apartment, I was allowed back inside to speak with some of them. They asked me why I hadn’t come outside shouting, “I live here.” I told them it didn’t make sense to walk out of my own apartment proclaiming my residence when I didn’t even know what was going on.[I also reminded them that they had guns pointed at me. Shouting at anyone with a gun doesn’t seem like a wise decision.

I had so many questions. Why hadn’t they announced themselves? Why had they pointed guns at me? Why had they refused to answer when I asked repeatedly what was going on? Was it protocol to send more than a dozen cops to a suspected burglary? Why hadn’t anyone asked for my ID or accepted it, especially after I’d offered it? If I hadn’t heard the dog, would I have opened the door to a gun in my face? “Maybe,” they answered.

I demanded all of their names and was given few. Some officers simply ignored me when I asked, boldly turning and walking away. Afterward, I saw them talking to neighbors, but they ignored me when I approached them again. A sergeant assured me that he’d personally provide me with all names and badge numbers.

I introduced myself to the reporting neighbor and asked if he was aware of the gravity of his actions — the ocean of armed officers, my life in danger. He stuttered about never having seen me, before snippily asking if I knew my next-door neighbor. After confirming that I did and questioning him further, he angrily responded, “I’m an attorney, so you can go f— yourself,” and walked away.

My white neighbor thought I was breaking into my own apartment. Nineteen cops showed up. | Washington Post

Do I think it would have been handled differently if the cops had encountered a white woman? Maybe. Hell ... probably. Is there a "smoking gun" to prove race/ethnicity was a factor? Nope. Which is typical in situations like this. But that does't mean that it wasn't because you have to look at patterns of behavior over time to determine if there is any sort of disparity in how the situation was handled that corresponds with race/ethnicity. Because it's not about the tree ... it's about the forest. So this is how I see it ...

1. This is the Prof. Gates situation all over again. This time on the West Coast and with a female. And just as I thought in that situation ... once she identified herself as the resident WTF didn't they "stand down" after they had "cleared" the apartment? I understand why they had to search her place even though she didn't want them to ... but why not "pump their brakes" at that point? Why was she dragged onto the street with her hands behind her back? How often do they encounter burglars with just socks on their feet? Why did they never check her ID or the locksmith receipt ... even after she offered it to them? It seems like they treated her as if she didn't belong there regardless. Like they couldn't fathom the idea that she actually lived there so she must have been some sort of criminal. It's my understanding that these officers were going back and forth with Ms. Wells for over 40 minutes. And after it was all said and done the officers refuse to provide their names and badge numbers and offer no apology?

2. Ms. Wells' university and corporate pedigree really isn't relevant because the officers had no way of knowing any of that. It's also inaccurate to say she didn't "fit the description" because Hispanics can range from blonde-haired and blue-eyed all the way black and every skin tone in between. I do, however, get her point. She's not saying they did or should have known her background. She's just juxtaposing that against her perception that the only thing that really mattered was that she was a woman of color when it came to how she was treated.

3. At a minimum sending 19 officers for a burglary report seems like overkill. I don't even have an issue with the officer pointing a gun at her when she came out. After all he had no idea who she was and she could have been the burglar. But jeez! 19 cops??? I was unfortunately the victim of a burglary once several years ago. It happened a few days after having a new security system installed ... and I still think one or more of the guys who installed it were involved. Because it's a good neighborhood and nothing like that ever happened before or since. The alarm went off and the cops arrived 10 minutes later. I got an alert on my iPhone and immediately left work to see what was going on. Someone had crowbarred the front door and made off with my flatscreen that was mounted on the living room wall. Classic "smash and grab". They were in and out within minutes and long gone before the cops arrived. Do yourself a favor and get yourself an anti-theft security kit for your flatscreen if you haven't already done so. $30 is a helluva lot cheaper than your homeowner's insurance deductible for sure. Lesson learned on my part ... good neighborhood notwithstanding. In any event, when I arrived I saw a couple of police vehicles outside my home and my front door ajar. I went in slowly to investigate and made sure to loudly announce myself as the homeowner because I wasn't trying to get shot. My point is that there were a grand total of TWO officers inside checking things out ... and this wasn't a report of a "POSSIBLE burglary in progress" ... my alarm had actually been triggered! And once they arrived they immediately saw that they weren't dealing with a "possible" situation ... but there weren't 17 extra cops sent as backup. So 19 cops? Seriously?

4. The "neighbor" who called 911 simply doesn't seem like the brightest of individuals. From the 911 call ...

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

The next door neighbor just broke into an upstairs apartment with two other people with like some sort of tools.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

He had like a suitcase. It's a guy and like two girls. And he had some tools he was tapping on the lock.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

He was taking something out of his uh suitcase and he was like tap tap tapping on it. And then like he took another tool tap tap tapping on it. And then he like entered the apartment and that is exactly when I called it.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

But I will tell you right now obviously this guy doesn't have a key to get into the apartment.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

It's one Latino male, dark hair, he's got a hat on. He's got a dark shirt on. And there were two girls.

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Are they also Hispanic?

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

Uh I think they are Hispanic yes.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

And let me tell you I don't think this is some sort of like crazy robbery or anything but I need some cops over here right now.

So it doesn't seem like he knew his next door neighbor personally based upon his snide little comment to Ms. Wells but he certainly recognized her. But it doesn't occur to him that she might know the other lady? He also talks about the guy tapping on the door handle with multiple tools from what appeared to be a suitcase. But it doesn't occur to him that the guy could be a locksmith? I mean what criminal is getting multiple tools out of a "suitcase" (most likely a toolbox) and "tap tap tapping" instead of just busting the door in? Especially in broad daylight? Or perhaps it did occur to him which is why he said he didn't think it was a robbery? Which then begs the question ... if he didn't think it was a robbery WTF did he need the cops sent over there for?

Your thoughts?

OAW

andi*pandi · Nov 19, 2015, 06:29 PM

How many burglars call locksmiths?

The neighbor might be forgiven for Kravitzing, you never know, maybe the locksmith didn't have a big van with "LOCKSMITH" written on it... but he does seem like an asshole. The cops, should have been a simple "name on the mailbox matches name on drivers license" check, "are you ok ma'am we had reports of the robbery" conversation followed by a safety walkthrough while the owner sits in the kitchen with another friendly officer, for her safety, in case there really was a burglar not just her and the locksmith.

So that's a clear case of overreaction on the cops.

Snow-i · Nov 19, 2015, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Snow-i ....

Now this situation bothers me a lot more than the Prof. Bland situation ...

My white neighbor thought I was breaking into my own apartment. Nineteen cops showed up. | Washington Post

Do I think it would have been handled differently if the cops had encountered a white woman? Maybe. Hell ... probably. Is there a "smoking gun" to prove race was a factor? Nope. Which is typical in situations like this. But that does't mean that it wasn't because you have to look at patterns of behavior over time to see if there is any sort of disparity in how the situation was handled that corresponds with race. So this how I see it ...

I would like to see data on that - though I will say emphatically that as described, the police were completely and absurdly in the wrong. They violated her rights, regardless of her color, and the officers that entered the apartment should be booked on breaking & entering. A neighbor's call does not constitute probable cause, nor exigent circumstances. Pure and simple the officers broke the law.

1. This is the Prof. Gates situation all over again. This time on the West Coast and with a female. And just as I thought in that situation ... once she identified herself as the resident WTF didn't they "stand down" after they had "cleared" the apartment? I understand why they had to search her place even though she didn't want them to ... but why not "pump their brakes" at that point? Why was she dragged onto the street with her hands behind her back? Why did they never check her ID or the locksmith receipt ... even after she offered it to them? It seems like they treated her as if she didn't belong there regardless. Like they couldn't fathom the idea that she actually lived there so she must have been some sort of criminal. And after it was all said and done you refuse to provide your name and badge numbers and offer no apology?

Yeah, Cali is notorious for their police being more like a gang and less like public servants. The police ought to be sued, fired, and arrested in that order.

2. Ms. Wells' university and corporate pedigree really isn't relevant because the officers had no way of knowing any of that. It's also inaccurate to say she didn't "fit the description" because Hispanics can range from blonde-haired and blue-eyed all the way black and every skin tone in between. I do, however, get her point. She's not saying they did or should have known her background. She's just juxtaposing that against her perception that the only thing that really mattered was that she was a woman of color when it came to how she was treated.

I can empathize with her position given that the police in this situation offered no explanation, legal basis, or even their names. However, it's difficult to pin this on racial profiling - I can find you a couple similar incidents involving people of all color, including white. Either way, we must demand for this behavior to stop.

3. At a minimum sending 19 officers for a burglary report seems like overkill. I don't even have an issue with the officer pointing a gun at her when she came out.

I do, you don't put your barrel on something unless you plan to shoot it. I don't have an issue with them having guns drawn and in a ready position, but without a confirmed threat to their safety it is absolutely reckless to point it.

After all he had no idea who she was and she could have been the burglar.

What gets me here is the cops didn't know one way or another whether there even was a burglar.

But jeez! 19 cops??? I was unfortunately the victim of a burglary once several years ago. It happened a few days after having a new security system installed ... and I still think one or more of the guys who installed it were involved. Because it's a good neighborhood and nothing like that ever happened before or since. The alarm went off and the cops arrived 10 minutes later. I got an alert on my iPhone and immediately left work to see what was going on. Someone had crowbarred the front door and made off with my flatscreen that was mounted on my living room wall. Classic "smash and grab". They were in and out within minutes and long gone before the cops arrived. Do yourself a favor and get yourself an anti-theft security kit for your flatscreen if you haven't already done so. $30 is a helluva cheaper than your homeowner's insurance deductible for sure. Lesson learned on my part ... good neighborhood notwithstanding. In any event, when I arrived I saw a police vehicle outside my home and my front door ajar. I went in slowly to investigate and made sure to loudly announce myself as the homeowner because I wasn't trying to get shot. My point is that there were a grand total of TWO officers there ... and this wasn't a report of a "POSSIBLE burglary in progress" ... my alarm had actually been triggered! So 19 officers? Seriously?

19 cops is overkill, though this part isn't as contentious to me as the way they interacted with her. My security system involves 4 paws and a tail, and is meant more as a deterrent than any alarm system. I am afraid that my pooch would be all too welcoming to any burglars though, I'd like to think he's smarter than that.

4. The neighbor simply doesn't seem like the brightest of individuals. From the 911 call ...

[i]"The next door neighbor just broke into an upstairs apartment with two other people with like some sort of tools."

"He had like a suitcase. It's a guy and like two girls. And he had some tools he was tapping on the lock."

He was taking something out of his uh suitcase and he was like tap tap tapping on it. And then like he took another tool tap tap tapping on it. And then he like entered the apartment and that is exactly when I called it.

"But I will tell you right now obviously this guy doesn't have a key to get into the apartment."

"It's one Latino male, dark hair, he's got a hat one. He's got a dark shirt on. And there were two girls."

"Dispatcher: Are they also Hispanic?"

"Uh I think they are Hispanic yes."

"And let me tell you I don't think this is some sort of like crazy robbery or anything but I need some cops over here right now."

I think the neighbor here acted extremely recklessly. If you don't even bother to get to know your neighbor, how can you presume to help them out by calling the cops on their apt? Dick.

So it doesn't seem like he knew his next door neighbor based upon his snide little comment to Ms. Wells but he certainly recognized her. He also talks about the guy tapping on the door handle with multiple tools from what appeared to be a suitcase. But it doesn't occur to him that the guy could be a locksmith. I mean what criminal is getting multiple tools out of a "suitcase" (most likely a toolbox) and "tap tap tapping" instead of just busting the door in? Especially in broad daylight? Or perhaps it did occur to him which is why he said he didn't think it was a robbery. Which then begs the question ... if he didn't think it was a robbery WTF did he need the cops sent over there for?

Busy body with nothing better to do - he also probably watches too much CSI and Law and Order. You think he'd be smarter than that being a lawyer an all - probably a tax lawyer or something like that.

Your thoughts?

These "police" ought to be ought of the job. They violated the law every step of the way, and should be charged with breaking and entering. All they had to do was check with the leasing office, or ask a few questions before standing down their rambo like ways. I'm all for officer safety, but not subjugation of innocent people in the name of safety.

OAW · Nov 19, 2015, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

How many burglars call locksmiths?

The neighbor might be forgiven for Kravitzing, you never know, maybe the locksmith didn't have a big van with "LOCKSMITH" written on it... but he does seem like an asshole. The cops, should have been a simple "name on the mailbox matches name on drivers license" check, "are you ok ma'am we had reports of the robbery" conversation followed by a safety walkthrough while the owner sits in the kitchen with another friendly officer, for her safety, in case there really was a burglar not just her and the locksmith.

So that's a clear case of overreaction on the cops.

OAW

OAW · Nov 19, 2015, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I would like to see data on that - though I will say emphatically that as described, the police were completely and absurdly in the wrong. They violated her rights, regardless of her color, and the officers that entered the apartment should be booked on breaking & entering. A neighbor's call does not constitute probable cause, nor exigent circumstances. Pure and simple the officers broke the law.

Yeah, Cali is notorious for their police being more like a gang and less like public servants. The police ought to be sued, fired, and arrested in that order.

I can empathize with her position given that the police in this situation offered no explanation, legal basis, or even their names. However, it's difficult to pin this on racial profiling - I can find you a couple similar incidents involving people of all color, including white. Either way, we must demand for this behavior to stop.

I do, you don't put your barrel on something unless you plan to shoot it. I don't have an issue with them having guns drawn and in a ready position, but without a confirmed threat to their safety it is absolutely reckless to point it. OAW: Great point. I didn't even consider it from that angle.

What gets me here is the cops didn't know one way or another whether there even was a burglar.

19 cops is overkill, though this part isn't as contentious to me as the way they interacted with her. My security system involves 4 paws and a tail, and is meant more as a deterrent than any alarm system. I am afraid that my pooch would be all too welcoming to any burglars though, I'd like to think he's smarter than that.

I think the neighbor here acted extremely recklessly. If you don't even bother to get to know your neighbor, how can you presume to help them out by calling the cops on their apt? Dick.

Busy body with nothing better to do - he also probably watches too much CSI and Law and Order. You think he'd be smarter than that being a lawyer an all - probably a tax lawyer or something like that.

These "police" ought to be ought of the job. They violated the law every step of the way, and should be charged with breaking and entering. All they had to do was check with the leasing office, or ask a few questions before standing down their rambo like ways. I'm all for officer safety, but not subjugation of innocent people in the name of safety.

OAW