5 ms·

I understand the reason for fear in the current law enforcement climate in the US. But this quote really misses something: "...they didn’t believe that I wasn’

by delinka 11y ago

I understand the reason for fear in the current law enforcement climate in the US. But this quote really misses something: "...they didn’t believe that I wasn’t a criminal. They had to find out. My word was not enough for them. My ID was not enough for them." Well ... no. If you are indeed close to the given description of a criminal complaint, they're going to check. The have to check. If they'd come across the actual criminal and he'd behaved similarly (and lying by producing plausible ID, acceptable home address, etc) and then let the actual criminal go, that'd be terrible. Now, the situation could indeed have been improved by the cops: the 'suspect' made no threatening moves, NO need to reach for a gun; simply act like a reasonable human being having a conversation; call for another officer with the same (similar?) ethnicity...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Why is that?
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Indeed. The only thing in this story that really disturbed me is that the officer apparently went for his gun immediately. This whole situation could, and should, go in a friendly manner, "like a reasonable human being having a conversation". The US really needs to work on reducing the amount of fear in the society - among both general population and law enforcement officers.
- cmiles74 11y ago
  I feel that this is a pretty important part of the story. Here's someone that clearly has real anxiety around exactly this situation and this very agressive move is made almost immediately. In my opinion, not only is it made to intimidate, but also puts his life in danger. What if he reached for his wallet without warning the police (something I could easily see myself doing)? He may very well catch a bullet before the officer realizes what he's really trying to do.
Artistry121 11y ago
Except that guy is nowhere near 160 lbs and the cops should have asked for an age range and a variety of other factors before detaining suspects.
cmiles74 11y ago
Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak, yet in this case police officers were letting that decide if this man should be taken in. Even worse, we know that cross-racial identifications are often more inaccurate than the already poor identifications of people we don't know.[0] No, I do not believe that the police are picking everyone "close to the given description of a criminal complaint". Perhaps they were trying to pick up everyone close to the description in _this_ criminal complaint. IMHO, this is simply an excuse to pursue racial profiling. In this story, the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description (he was heavier) but they didn't really notice until after the fact and this didn't prompt them to let him go. Then what was the point of detaining him? Clearly for show, everyone in the area was reminded of how active the police were. Again, in my opinion, I suspect that the way people felt about said activity would likely break along racial lines. [0]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ajcl28&div=15&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/a...
- delinka 11y ago
  "Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak..." and then "...the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description." You can't have it both ways. If they know the description they have from an eyewitness is weak, then they have to dig deeper to make sure they're not releasing the actual suspect. In this case, he never mentioned whether the eyewitness actually came along and said it wasn't him. All we know is that we was not arrested and no longer detained. We don't know why.
  - cmiles74 11y ago
    I disagree, I think if the description is weak you shouldn't be picking anyone up at all. I would argue that "digging deeper", that is picking up more people, would but the police at risk of unlawful detainment.
flexie 11y ago
Here's the thing: the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter. It's like being stopped because you are white, average size and wear a baseball cap. Would that ever happen? Very rarely. Would the officer stopping a white guy who fitted a 1/5 description grab for his gun? Of course not.
- delinka 11y ago
  "the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter." Because the description of the suspect is "black, average size, and wears a knit cap." Indeed the description could have been more complete. Whomever interviewed the victim might have botched it. Maybe the woman was completely wrong. Maybe the communication for a BOLO was still incomplete. But that's the description they had and that's the description they went on. These cops could have been less intimidating, but with the information they had, they still had to check this guy out.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    The description also said 'puffy coat' which he is very clearly not wearing. Its not just incomplete - he literally does not fit the description.
    - DrScump 11y ago
      A quilted blazer (his words) is not at all a form of a puffy coat?
      - hysan 11y ago
        Perhaps I'm just not very good with fashion, but that is not at all what I picture when I hear the words "puffy coat".
- cmiles74 11y ago
  IMHO, this description is practically useless. It is, in fact, racial profiling; that's the effective description. And the officer's knew that when they took it down from the witness and they knew that when they pulled this man (and likely several others) over for questioning. I would not so easily let the officers off the hook. The worst case is that this happens so often, they don't even see it for what it is.
unprepare 11y ago
Except the description specifically said puffy coat, and he is wearing a wool coat. He literally doesnt fit the description.
- kazinator 11y ago
  You can't take every word literally from someone who just had someone break into their home.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    She's either a credible witness or she isnt. If she isnt, then the black and knit cap part are just as suspect as the puffy coat part; and the cops cant stop anyone because they have no description - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description If she is, then puffy coat is just as important as black or knit cap, and the cops cant stop anyone who doesnt match all the criteria - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description.
- DrScump 11y ago
  He literally called it a quilted blazer right in the article.
drostie 11y ago
> If you are indeed close to the given description of a criminal complaint, they're going to check. They have to check. No, no they don't. Goodness. Let me break down this problem for you. Maybe a quarter of Boston is black, half of those are men, the height/weight thing probably doesn't rule out more than half the people (and the police clearly admit in this interaction that it's a stretch to say he's that light-weight). At least 10% of men will go out with a knit cap on a cold Boston day. You multiply those together and you get 0.00625. You, and the police officers, together are thinking, "man, that's a surprisingly low probability, only an 0.625% chance that we'd come across a guy matching that description! We'd better detain him!" But that's a dangerous fallacy, in a family called the false positive paradoxes. Usually we surprise kids in statistics class with these by saying, "hey, you live in New York and took a 99%-accurate test for HIV and it came out positive, what's the chance that you actually have HIV?" And they answer 99%. But the real answer is, you probably don't have it, and the probability is closer to one in three. How can this be? Well, you can look up these statistics for 2012, where there are 130,000 cases of HIV/AIDS in New York, which has nearly 20 million people, so your prior probability of having an HIV infection is only something like 0.65%; then the 1% false positive rate means that your 99%-accurate test has only increased your probability of actually having an HIV infection to about 39%, as the false positive set is larger than the true positive set. It's even worse in this case, where you're looking for one person. Your 0.625% chance is spread out over a city of 650,000, meaning that over 4,000 people are subsumed by this description. Given all of the facts cited there is a less-than-0.025% chance that the guy they are detaining has done anything wrong. Imagine the absurdity if they actually worked out and then quoted the statistics: "Look, we're 99.98% sure that you're not the guy we're looking for, but we're detaining you anyway, because we demand six nines of certainty that you're not who we're looking for. Oh, you have a valid photo ID and we can easily check that someone with that name is a professor at this college? Roots in the community? Well, that only bumps you up to about 99.999% sure that you're not the person we're looking for, but that's only five nines, buddy, not enough for us to let you go about your business. We've got to get the woman who made a complaint to look at your face to make absolutely sure that you're not the criminal who we think you might with 0.001% chance be." They absolutely do not have to check that. Certainly they don't have to stop you to check that -- at five nines surely they can let you go about your business and check up with you at your residence if they receive sudden incriminating information.
joesmo 11y ago
"If they'd come across the actual criminal and he'd behaved similarly (and lying by producing plausible ID, acceptable home address, etc) and then let the actual criminal go, that'd be terrible." No it wouldn't. This happens all the time to white people. I had a friend who had numerous warrants and was let go by the police numerous times because he used his brother's name. The author is saying they only did this because he was black and I don't doubt that one bit.

by delinka 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

res0nat0r 11y ago
Why is that?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Indeed. The only thing in this story that really disturbed me is that the officer apparently went for his gun immediately. This whole situation could, and should, go in a friendly manner, "like a reasonable human being having a conversation". The US really needs to work on reducing the amount of fear in the society - among both general population and law enforcement officers.

cmiles74 11y ago
I feel that this is a pretty important part of the story. Here's someone that clearly has real anxiety around exactly this situation and this very agressive move is made almost immediately. In my opinion, not only is it made to intimidate, but also puts his life in danger. What if he reached for his wallet without warning the police (something I could easily see myself doing)? He may very well catch a bullet before the officer realizes what he's really trying to do.

Artistry121 11y ago

Except that guy is nowhere near 160 lbs and the cops should have asked for an age range and a variety of other factors before detaining suspects.

cmiles74 11y ago

Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak, yet in this case police officers were letting that decide if this man should be taken in. Even worse, we know that cross-racial identifications are often more inaccurate than the already poor identifications of people we don't know.[0] No, I do not believe that the police are picking everyone "close to the given description of a criminal complaint". Perhaps they were trying to pick up everyone close to the description in _this_ criminal complaint. IMHO, this is simply an excuse to pursue racial profiling. In this story, the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description (he was heavier) but they didn't really notice until after the fact and this didn't prompt them to let him go. Then what was the point of detaining him? Clearly for show, everyone in the area was reminded of how active the police were. Again, in my opinion, I suspect that the way people felt about said activity would likely break along racial lines. [0]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ajcl28&div=15&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/a...

delinka 11y ago
"Eyewitness identification is known to be extraordinarily weak..." and then "...the police readily admitted that he didn't match the description." You can't have it both ways. If they know the description they have from an eyewitness is weak, then they have to dig deeper to make sure they're not releasing the actual suspect. In this case, he never mentioned whether the eyewitness actually came along and said it wasn't him. All we know is that we was not arrested and no longer detained. We don't know why.
- cmiles74 11y ago
  I disagree, I think if the description is weak you shouldn't be picking anyone up at all. I would argue that "digging deeper", that is picking up more people, would but the police at risk of unlawful detainment.

flexie 11y ago

Here's the thing: the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter. It's like being stopped because you are white, average size and wear a baseball cap. Would that ever happen? Very rarely. Would the officer stopping a white guy who fitted a 1/5 description grab for his gun? Of course not.

delinka 11y ago
"the guy is stopped because he's black, average size and wears a knitted hat during the winter." Because the description of the suspect is "black, average size, and wears a knit cap." Indeed the description could have been more complete. Whomever interviewed the victim might have botched it. Maybe the woman was completely wrong. Maybe the communication for a BOLO was still incomplete. But that's the description they had and that's the description they went on. These cops could have been less intimidating, but with the information they had, they still had to check this guy out.
- unprepare 11y ago
  The description also said 'puffy coat' which he is very clearly not wearing. Its not just incomplete - he literally does not fit the description.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    A quilted blazer (his words) is not at all a form of a puffy coat?
    - hysan 11y ago
      Perhaps I'm just not very good with fashion, but that is not at all what I picture when I hear the words "puffy coat".
cmiles74 11y ago
IMHO, this description is practically useless. It is, in fact, racial profiling; that's the effective description. And the officer's knew that when they took it down from the witness and they knew that when they pulled this man (and likely several others) over for questioning. I would not so easily let the officers off the hook. The worst case is that this happens so often, they don't even see it for what it is.

unprepare 11y ago

Except the description specifically said puffy coat, and he is wearing a wool coat. He literally doesnt fit the description.

kazinator 11y ago
You can't take every word literally from someone who just had someone break into their home.
- unprepare 11y ago
  She's either a credible witness or she isnt. If she isnt, then the black and knit cap part are just as suspect as the puffy coat part; and the cops cant stop anyone because they have no description - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description If she is, then puffy coat is just as important as black or knit cap, and the cops cant stop anyone who doesnt match all the criteria - and so the cops stopped someone not matching the description.
DrScump 11y ago
He literally called it a quilted blazer right in the article.

drostie 11y ago

> If you are indeed close to the given description of a criminal complaint, they're going to check. They have to check. No, no they don't. Goodness. Let me break down this problem for you. Maybe a quarter of Boston is black, half of those are men, the height/weight thing probably doesn't rule out more than half the people (and the police clearly admit in this interaction that it's a stretch to say he's that light-weight). At least 10% of men will go out with a knit cap on a cold Boston day. You multiply those together and you get 0.00625. You, and the police officers, together are thinking, "man, that's a surprisingly low probability, only an 0.625% chance that we'd come across a guy matching that description! We'd better detain him!" But that's a dangerous fallacy, in a family called the false positive paradoxes. Usually we surprise kids in statistics class with these by saying, "hey, you live in New York and took a 99%-accurate test for HIV and it came out positive, what's the chance that you actually have HIV?" And they answer 99%. But the real answer is, you probably don't have it, and the probability is closer to one in three. How can this be? Well, you can look up these statistics for 2012, where there are 130,000 cases of HIV/AIDS in New York, which has nearly 20 million people, so your prior probability of having an HIV infection is only something like 0.65%; then the 1% false positive rate means that your 99%-accurate test has only increased your probability of actually having an HIV infection to about 39%, as the false positive set is larger than the true positive set. It's even worse in this case, where you're looking for one person. Your 0.625% chance is spread out over a city of 650,000, meaning that over 4,000 people are subsumed by this description. Given all of the facts cited there is a less-than-0.025% chance that the guy they are detaining has done anything wrong. Imagine the absurdity if they actually worked out and then quoted the statistics: "Look, we're 99.98% sure that you're not the guy we're looking for, but we're detaining you anyway, because we demand six nines of certainty that you're not who we're looking for. Oh, you have a valid photo ID and we can easily check that someone with that name is a professor at this college? Roots in the community? Well, that only bumps you up to about 99.999% sure that you're not the person we're looking for, but that's only five nines, buddy, not enough for us to let you go about your business. We've got to get the woman who made a complaint to look at your face to make absolutely sure that you're not the criminal who we think you might with 0.001% chance be." They absolutely do not have to check that. Certainly they don't have to stop you to check that -- at five nines surely they can let you go about your business and check up with you at your residence if they receive sudden incriminating information.

joesmo 11y ago

"If they'd come across the actual criminal and he'd behaved similarly (and lying by producing plausible ID, acceptable home address, etc) and then let the actual criminal go, that'd be terrible." No it wouldn't. This happens all the time to white people. I had a friend who had numerous warrants and was let go by the police numerous times because he used his brother's name. The author is saying they only did this because he was black and I don't doubt that one bit.