Wow. I only just looked at the video of this incident. I had been following the conversation and assuming that even a serial liar and moron like you must have at least some valid reason for asserting that this was reasonable behavior by the cop. I won’t over-estimate you like that again.
The cop said, as he was cuffing her:
Not a single person here has suggested that police should ignore reports of crimes, and not stop suspects. What i would like you to do is explain to me which of the actions described by the officer constitutes a crime, or something that would lead to reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Was it wearing a black shirt? Having a backpack? Riding a bike? Looking at people’s driveways? Was it some particular combination of those two or more of those things?
I’m not arguing that the woman doesn’t fit the description the cop had. But fitting the description does not mean that she’s committing a crime, especially when the actual description provided by the officer doesn’t include a single element that constitutes a violation of the law.
You really are an actual, dyed-in-the-wool fascist, aren’t you?
You’ve described it yourself… She matched the description of someone reported to the police, that was suspected of looking for things to steal or houses to burgle, and was stopped to see if she had any outstanding warrants or anything else suspicious. None were found, and she was on her way again in 6 or 7 minutes.
What, exactly, is wrong with that? It’s a normal encounter, one that most people will probably have at some point in their lives. Most - as the cop also said - won’t end up handcuffed.
Would you seriously act the way she did if you were stopped? And then complain about being cuffed?
Did you even watch the video? I can only infer from what he said, as he doesn’t outright state it (not that there’s any reason he should) but it would be either theft or burglary. She matched the description of someone who had been reported as acting suspiciously. After a brief detention, the cop decided there was no further evidence, and ended the detention.
What, exactly, do you think is wrong with that? If someone appeared to be snooping around your property, and you reported it, isn’t that exactly what you’d want to happen? Hell, if you’d been reported as snooping like that, wouldn’t you rather be investigated and cleared?
The officer said that she had been reported for being on a bike and looking at people’s driveways. The fact some brain-dead Oklahoman, probably a close relative of yours, decided to report someone to the police for riding a bike on a public road does not mean that her actions constituted anything worth investigating. The cop was required to respond to the call, but in doing so he could also have used his own fucking intelligence and a little bit of courtesy.
You say that there’s no reason why he should have to outright state his suspicion, and you go on to infer that the suspicion was theft or burglary. But none of that is evident in what he tells her. All he says is that he has evidence of a women in a black shirt, with a backpack, on a bike, looking at driveways. Nothing there is illegal, and nothing there constitutes probable cause for an arrest, and certainly not for an unauthorized search. The simple fact of being on a bike and looking at driveways (whatever that actually means) shouldn’t even, in my opinion, rise to reasonable suspicion.
If the cop were a professional, he would have driven past, seen that this was someone who was clearly just a regular citizen riding a bike, and then moved on. At the absolute most, he could have stopped the car, and in a friendly rather than abrupt and confrontational manner, said to the woman something like:
She probably would have said something like, “I’m actually on my way to work. I bike this route regularly, and i work down at [Whatever] Street.”
And then he could have acted like a regular human being and said, “OK, thanks for your help. I’m sorry to stop you, but i hope you understand that we have to look into it when someone makes a call.” He could also have added, “Even when the caller is clearly a backward product of incest like Steophan who wouldn’t know probable cause if it kicked him to the kerb and handcuffed him.”
As George Carlin once said, "They ought to have two new requirements for being on the police. Intelligence and decency. You never can tell, it might just work. It certainly hasn’t been tried yet.” You could probably benefit from trying it as well.
As for what i would have done in this situation, it wouldn’t have been exactly the same as the woman, but it wouldn’t have been immediately cooperative either.
The first thing he asks her, without even a “Hello” or any sort of friendly interaction, is an abrupt and peremptory “Where do you live at?”
If i were on a bike or on foot, and those were the first words a police officer asked me, especially in the tone that he used, my response would be something along the lines of, “Why do you need to know that? I am going about my daily business in a public place, and i haven’t committed any crimes, so i’m not sure why you need that information.”
At this stage it is worth noting here that your rights when on foot or on a bicycle are somewhat greater than when you’re in charge of a motor vehicle. Police can require a drivers license of a driver they have pulled over, but that rule does apply to cyclists or pedestrians. In states with a legal “stop and identify” statute, i might be required to provide my name, but even then there’s no clear ruling about whether i actually have to provide an actual ID like a drivers license. Some states’ “stop and identify” laws even explicitly say that the only requirement is to tell the officer your name.
But we’re talking about Oklahoma City here, and Oklahoma does NOT have a “stop and identify” statute. That is, even if the police officer has reasonable suspicion to stop me, there is no law in Oklahoma that requires me to provide my identity to him. He can ask, but in an investigative detention like this, i am not required to respond, and he cannot compel either a verbal response or a physical piece of identification.
One thing i would have done differently from the woman is ask, clearly and unambiguously, “Am i free to leave?” That question helps to clearly establish the status of your encounter with the police. If the answer is “Yes,” you can then either choose to leave, or to stay and answer the officer’s questions. If the answer is “No,” then you are under investigative detention, and have a right not to answer questions. There is no law preventing the police officer from asking you anything that he wants to ask you. It is not an infringement of your rights for the cop to ask you questions. But you don’t have to answer them, and any effort to compel and answer IS a violation of your rights.
I will also add that, if the officer approached me with the sort of polite and friendly inquiry that i suggested earlier in the thread, i would have no trouble telling him that i was just cycling to work, and that i cycle through this neighborhood on a regular basis. I would also tell him that i had not stopped in front of any houses, or been peering into any driveways, and if that was the nature of his report, then either he had the wrong cyclist, or the person who called the police was an ill-informed sister-fucking idiot like Steophan.
While it may be true that body cams don’t prevent violent confrontations, they certainly DO help determine what really happened and who is lying.
It used to be that all the police had to do was stop someone and then claim he/she was suspicious or was “resisting”. Thanks to the cameras the police AND the “civilians” have, we can see for ourselves who was the fuck-up and who lied.
It gives us a whole different view on what really happened, and shows us when some badge heavy asshole needs to be fired and face charges.
If it “only” serves to provide evidence of misconduct, then it worked. Also, if it served to protect a good cop who was falsely accused, it worked TOO.
But it is reasonable to expect that someone who points a gun at you is presenting a threat, especially if the gun has been altered to look real. The fact that you find out later that it was plastic doesn’t help, because if you wait and see if the gun is real, you often get shot when it turns out that the gun is real.
No, AFAIK anyone who is in reasonable fear of his life, or serious bodily injury, can use lethal force to defend himself.
It’s too bad that Rice got shot, but it just highlights why it is a bad idea to point guns at the police and hope they can tell right off that it isn’t a real gun. At night. When the gun has been altered to look real.
It does not matter what the gun looked like, it was in his waistband. He never pulled it out before being shot. He was not pointing it at an officer at the time. And it was not at night.
I haven’t followed the Tamir Rice case, but isn’t Ohio an open carry state? Even if he was walking around with a real gun in his waistband, isn’t that legal?
Tamir Rice was a minor. Unless I am very much mistaken, open carry laws do not apply to unsupervised minors. And he was not really carrying it openly when the police arrived: it was tucked in his waistband, under his jacket. But a 12-year-old gets little slack from police if they are a scary, scary, small black person, it seems.
Your cite refers to Airsoft guns as commonly considered “toys” multiple times (with cautions that they can still be dangerous or seen as real guns by others):
*"Because Airsoft guns are often viewed as toys, young people owning the weapons sometimes do not realize (or adequately evaluate) the risks posed by simply holding such a “toy.”
A 2003 Government Accountability Office report concluded “that scant data exist on the incidence of crimes, injuries, or deaths involving toy guns and on the long-term effects that childhood play with toy guns may have.” Further, whatever incidents of toy gun injuries or fatalities were reported “probably do not represent an accurate or comprehensive reporting.”*
So more lying from the cowardly and incredibly lazy (so lazy you didn’t even read your own cite!) liar Steophan.
Wrong again. Not only does your own quote make it clear that they are wrongly regarded as toys, there’s this -
Add in the fact that this particular gun had been modified to look like a real one instead of a replica, and it’s clear that anyone seeing it could reasonably believe they were in danger. As acknowledged by those who know the facts of the case, and not (for some reason) by you, who ignores the facts.
But by all means continue with the ad hominems. Apart from being wrong, they also make you look petty and foolish, as anyone who actually reads my posts will know that I acknowledge my mistakes and apologise for them.
Something you should consider doing regarding your comments about “toy” guns.
