4 ms·

I have major problems with using stories like these to promote the idea that the police did something wrong. The police don't know who that man was, or why he

I have major problems with using stories like these to promote the idea that the police did something wrong. The police don't know who that man was, or why he was on property that didn't belong to him. They're not mind readers. If he had provided the identification (or at least his name/DOB) that they had asked for, then it probably would have become clear to them that he was telling the truth. But by REFUSING to give them any information that would prove his story true, he escalated a situation that could have been resolved without his arrest. People seem to forget that we ask police TO INVESTIGATE. Not just walk up, accept whatever story they are given and then drive away.

chadcatlett 4y ago
> The police don't know who that man was, or why he was on property that didn't belong to him. They're not mind readers Exactly. They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  > They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him. No, actually that's not what they decided. They decided that, before they just walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate without knowing who he was or whether he actually belonged at that property, they would actually do their jobs and find that out that information by doing a simple thing like asking him to identify himself. I know some people really don't like police officers, but, in the future, you should try to make sure that that dislike doesn't make you completely irrational.
  - gspetr 4y ago
    >SWORN DUTY If they cannot be sued for a breach of it, do they have it? SCOTUS opined: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      I have no idea why you think what you posted has anything to do with what I said or the interaction that is being discussed. The Due Process clause is not the only source of the state's power to enact laws and regulate the conduct of citizens. The police powers of the government existed long before the Due Process clause was enacted. But even if you take the position that the police are not REQUIRED to do anything (and I would disagree with that position), that does not mean that they CANNOT do anything. In this case, the police CHOSE (to use a term more suitable to your position) to investigate. And nothing precludes them from choosing to do so. Or do you take the position that the police are neither required to, nor can they choose to investigate when called?
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    > walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate No, police have no "sworn duty" to investigate - you literally made this up out of your head. “I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the duties of (state position) of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas, so help me God.” "I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of ______________________ according to the best of my ability and perform my duties in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York." They're all like this. ---- No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point.
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      > "I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of..." So I assume those "duties" they're referring to don't include investigating when they are assigned a call. Perhaps you think "duties" just refers to sitting in their car eating donuts? > "No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point." Again, you have to pay attention to the actual facts when you participate in these discussions. The police were not just driving down the street and, upon seeing a black man watering some flowers, say to themselves "he must be up to no good". They were specifically CALLED by a neighbor to the property to investigate a suspicious person on their neighbor's property (you know, the typical 'looking out for your neighbor' thing). Your position seems to be that the police should not have done anything. Simple looked at him, shrugged their shoulders and walked away. Because that's exactly what you would want the police to do if YOU were away and your neighbor saw someone on your property and called the police to investigate. You'd absolutely want them to not find out who that person was or why he was on your property.
psyc 4y ago
I was detained for 20 minutes for cutting across what I perceived as some empty field, 300 meters down the street from my brother's house. Turns out it was private property, and we weren't in the UK. I presume some busibody at their window called the police. It's a pretty posh subdivision. The land is literally much more valuable than other people's, and I went and walked on it like a wild animal. But that leaves the fact that white me had no reason to get my back up, because I knew the white cop wasn't being racist. So I handed him my ID and sat quietly on a privately owned rock until he was done with it.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  It really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with upbringing. How come black people (specifically African-Americans) are the only people who seem to have these "racism" issues with police? What about other minorities? How many Indians do you see on TV fighting with police or getting shot? What about Hispanics or Asians? Hell, what about African immigrants? It seems quite strange to me that for all this talk of "systemic racism", none of the other minorities seem to have these issues. It's almost as if the racist police don't have any issue with any minority OTHER than black people. Which makes me think that it really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what some people are being taught. There was a video a few weeks ago of young black children (probably around 5-8 years old) taunting, cursing and HITTING police in Minnesota. https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swear-at-cop-in-minnesota/ https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swea... Now, you tell me, who taught that child to behave that way? And when that child grows up, what possible interaction could he have with police that DOESN'T end up with him being beaten, shot or killed? Everyone wants to look at one side of the issue and ignore what is going on everyday in black families and communities that leads to these confrontations.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I get the feeling you don't really understand how racism works. It doesn't mean "I think everyone from a different ethnic background is somehow a worse person". It's often completely subconscious - your reaction to the observed behaviour of another person is nearly always coloured to some extent by the degree you consider them part of some category largely based on their superficial physical appearance (skin colour, hair colour/style, eye or nose shape etc.). Racism is when you let that colouring adversely affect the way you treat such individuals. It might even be assuming that because they look, say, Jewish you treat them with an expectation of being more intelligent than average.

chadcatlett 4y ago

> The police don't know who that man was, or why he was on property that didn't belong to him. They're not mind readers Exactly. They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him.

illuminerdy 4y ago
> They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him. No, actually that's not what they decided. They decided that, before they just walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate without knowing who he was or whether he actually belonged at that property, they would actually do their jobs and find that out that information by doing a simple thing like asking him to identify himself. I know some people really don't like police officers, but, in the future, you should try to make sure that that dislike doesn't make you completely irrational.
- gspetr 4y ago
  >SWORN DUTY If they cannot be sued for a breach of it, do they have it? SCOTUS opined: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    I have no idea why you think what you posted has anything to do with what I said or the interaction that is being discussed. The Due Process clause is not the only source of the state's power to enact laws and regulate the conduct of citizens. The police powers of the government existed long before the Due Process clause was enacted. But even if you take the position that the police are not REQUIRED to do anything (and I would disagree with that position), that does not mean that they CANNOT do anything. In this case, the police CHOSE (to use a term more suitable to your position) to investigate. And nothing precludes them from choosing to do so. Or do you take the position that the police are neither required to, nor can they choose to investigate when called?
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate No, police have no "sworn duty" to investigate - you literally made this up out of your head. “I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the duties of (state position) of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas, so help me God.” "I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of ______________________ according to the best of my ability and perform my duties in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York." They're all like this. ---- No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    > "I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of..." So I assume those "duties" they're referring to don't include investigating when they are assigned a call. Perhaps you think "duties" just refers to sitting in their car eating donuts? > "No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point." Again, you have to pay attention to the actual facts when you participate in these discussions. The police were not just driving down the street and, upon seeing a black man watering some flowers, say to themselves "he must be up to no good". They were specifically CALLED by a neighbor to the property to investigate a suspicious person on their neighbor's property (you know, the typical 'looking out for your neighbor' thing). Your position seems to be that the police should not have done anything. Simple looked at him, shrugged their shoulders and walked away. Because that's exactly what you would want the police to do if YOU were away and your neighbor saw someone on your property and called the police to investigate. You'd absolutely want them to not find out who that person was or why he was on your property.

psyc 4y ago

I was detained for 20 minutes for cutting across what I perceived as some empty field, 300 meters down the street from my brother's house. Turns out it was private property, and we weren't in the UK. I presume some busibody at their window called the police. It's a pretty posh subdivision. The land is literally much more valuable than other people's, and I went and walked on it like a wild animal. But that leaves the fact that white me had no reason to get my back up, because I knew the white cop wasn't being racist. So I handed him my ID and sat quietly on a privately owned rock until he was done with it.

illuminerdy 4y ago
It really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with upbringing. How come black people (specifically African-Americans) are the only people who seem to have these "racism" issues with police? What about other minorities? How many Indians do you see on TV fighting with police or getting shot? What about Hispanics or Asians? Hell, what about African immigrants? It seems quite strange to me that for all this talk of "systemic racism", none of the other minorities seem to have these issues. It's almost as if the racist police don't have any issue with any minority OTHER than black people. Which makes me think that it really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what some people are being taught. There was a video a few weeks ago of young black children (probably around 5-8 years old) taunting, cursing and HITTING police in Minnesota. https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swear-at-cop-in-minnesota/ https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swea... Now, you tell me, who taught that child to behave that way? And when that child grows up, what possible interaction could he have with police that DOESN'T end up with him being beaten, shot or killed? Everyone wants to look at one side of the issue and ignore what is going on everyday in black families and communities that leads to these confrontations.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I get the feeling you don't really understand how racism works. It doesn't mean "I think everyone from a different ethnic background is somehow a worse person". It's often completely subconscious - your reaction to the observed behaviour of another person is nearly always coloured to some extent by the degree you consider them part of some category largely based on their superficial physical appearance (skin colour, hair colour/style, eye or nose shape etc.). Racism is when you let that colouring adversely affect the way you treat such individuals. It might even be assuming that because they look, say, Jewish you treat them with an expectation of being more intelligent than average.