Ummm…it already went to court, where it was concluded that the police didn’t have probable cause and all charges against the brothers were dropped.
Now, if you were in my position writing this response you’d write an insane spittle-flecked screed about how disgusting it was that people were trying to subvert the law by even suggesting that the first brother was guilty of anything. Also somehow you’d work Emmett Till into your reply, and the words “lynch mob,” and something about how we were all evil for trying to deny the right to self-defense.
For some reason though you seem to care so much more about nuance in this case.
I thought they went to court on the assault charges? That doesn’t say anything about whether the police had probable cause to ask for ID in the first place - for example, if they’d seen something as they followed them driving to the parking lot that would have justified a stop.
I mean, it’s clear why the assault charges were dropped, as the police officer clearly lost it, but that doesn’t speak to whether the original request for ID was valid.
Guess you didn’t read where I said that Michigan is not a stop-and-identify state. The brothers were not driving when the cops demanded their IDs. They within their rights to refuse them.
This is another case where I’m glad the victims were brave enough to resist. If they’d meekly obeyed and then complained about it later, not only is unlikely anything would have been done to those cops, but the public wouldn’t know the lengths they were willing to enforce unlawful demands. Their harassment would’ve stayed hidden.
Resistance in the manner that these men did is what allows the truth to come out.
According to the one Detroit Fox News station report, I believe they had been driving and had just entered a business with the cops right behind them.
At any rate, even in a “stop and identify” state, the police need a reasonable suspicion that someone’s committed a crime, and without that, someone’s free to refuse to comply. Odd that the cops didn’t make something up (?), which is SOP, but …
As to Michigan, one case where they didn’t reach the question of “reasonable suspicion” (though various states have reached that question):
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 108 S. Ct. 1975, 100 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1988)
They were only within their rights to refuse if the demand had nothing to do with their driving. What makes you think it didn’t?
This is the problem with pretty much all of these arguments about use of force. People keep talking about irrelevant, separate issues, not whether the force used - by either party - was acceptable. Or are you saying that, had there been probable cause to demand the ID, in your opinion the use of force by the police would be acceptable?
Because the cops didn’t pull them over when they were driving.
And because the cops didn’t answer them when they asked them what they did wrong.
And because the first thing out of the cop’s mouth smacked of thuggish “what did you say to me back there, boy?” emotionalism. Nothing about any moving violations.
One man spent a year in jail before his case was dismissed by a judge who found the police “evasive”. Another spent a year in jail and then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served. Hopefully, if innocent, he can get his record cleared.
Pun intended, but whomever at “countercurrent news” who regurgitated from HuffPo article should be ashamed. It’s horrid writing/reporting using tactics to which your average person won’t pay attention. And
I’d be curious to know precisely what Demings said, in context. Article goes: "Demings said that ‘because of the backdrop of everything happening in the country at this time… It’s concerning to me […]’ "-- where’s the rest of the sentence? Instead, writer just fills in his/her own end with “how people might react to this shooting of an unarmed African American with his hands literally up in the air when he was shot.”
The HuffPo article puts relevant portion this way: “He added: ‘It’s concerning to me’ how the public might react.”
By contrast, NBC news said:
"Demings said he was asking for a criminal investigation because ‘I am very sensitive to some of the events that have occurred around the nation in recent times,’ an apparent reference to public demonstrations in the wake of grand juries’ decisions not to indict white police officers in the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York. Like Bartee, both Brown and Garner, who were black, were unarmed. ‘I want to ensure that we have transparency as well as accountability for the actions of all of my staff that’s involved,’ said Demings, who was joined at the news conference by black and white religious and community leaders. ‘I ask everyone to not rush to judgment and to allow the investigation to be completed in accordance with established policy and law.’ "
To be sure, I can see why police are caught between being expected to disseminate preliminary info but also wanting to avoid being pinned down to a particular story – like the cops who shot that 12-yo having evidently initially told superiors that the kid was at the gazebo with other people, but they didn’t know the event was captured on video – but it’s better to say nothing than “Bartee made extensive furtive movements” along with the usual “didn’t do what the cop told him” line. You’re just asking for ridicule. Extensive furtive movements. OK. Does that mean he was extensively voiding his bowels while waving his hands in the air? What? Don’t be so vague that folks are confounded at what that means.