3 ms·
You don't think their boss isn't telling them to harass those people? Clearly there is something going on at this location. The article is one sided. It coul
by codeonfire 13y ago
You don't think their boss isn't telling them to harass those people? Clearly there is something going on at this location. The article is one sided. It could just as easily be the case that the store is a drug operation as it is that the police are all racists. 62 arrests makes me think drug dealer. Criminals and police tend to tolerate each other because that's part of their jobs. Normal people would have left somewhere before the first 50 arrests.
- justanother 13y agoI am uncertain as to which part of this argument rationalizes arresting an employee for 'trespassing' as he is carrying out his duties. As a glance at HN any day of the week will tell you, American LEOs have more legal tools at their disposal than ever before, to lawfully investigate a suspect. This is not one of them.
- codeonfire 13y agoYou're uncertain because no part of my argument attempts to rationalize it. You're taking the debate approach that asks 'should they or shouldn't they arrest or harass the person?' Who cares. The fact is that they can and will harass people. What's up for debate is whether is there some missing information in this article that is leading to false conclusions about corrupt cops. Is there a doubt about whether this is random police harassment. Yes there is.
- justanother 13y agoAn all-too-valid point whose realism I was unprepared to consider. Just because harassment isn't a proper or efficient means to stop drug trafficking, doesn't mean it isn't the case here.