Liberals, as evidenced in this thread, like to pretend that the police knew all the facts before they even started an ivestigation, like that the man lived there, and then get outraged that the police didn’t act as if they knew all the facts beforehand because they love getting all outraged at the po-po.
Sorry, I have to disagree. He didn’t break into the place, he was seen walking in the front door. There was no burglary, nor evidence of any burglary, just a kid some neighbors didn’t recognize. If an 80 year old unfamiliar-looking grandma was seen walking into the front door of a house, would they have assumed she was burgling the place? There’s no more evidence that this kid was a thief, and any assumption to the contrary on the part of neighbors or the police smacks of poor reasoning at best.
But this can’t be true. All cops are racist assholes who love to go around harasssing and murdering black people for funsies.
This is very possible. If so, they still pepper-sprayed a kid who didn’t need to be pepper-sprayed. Not the worst thing in the world, but I think the cops should strive to do better, and we should expect better. Even based on the cops’ statement, pepper-spraying the kid was not necessary at all to protect and serve the public.
Do you even know what the role of the police is? Their job is to investigate whether what the nieghbors said was factual or not. Hence them going out to investigate. The idea that you think the police should be telepathic is retarded.
(post shortened)
The 18yr old could not establish that he was in his own home. He had an ID with a different address. There were no pictures of him in an area of the home that contained family photos.
A neighbor reported suspicious activity. How dare they! Someone entered their neighbor’s house and they didn’t recognize him. Could the police send an officer to check it out? Maybe it’s nothing, maybe it’s a burglary in progress?
Oh, so you were there on the scene at the time. Please enlighten us with all the facts of what actually happened.
Yes. Unless there’s some overwhelming evidence that a crime is being committed, beyond the fact that a neighbor saw him and didn’t recognize him.
There’s a perspective, evident in this and other threads, that it is right and proper for every person be viewed as a likely/potential criminal by the police until that person can prove that he/she is not.
I contend that it’s a wholly inappropriate way to police the citizenry, particularly when there is no direct evidence of criminal activity. And being in a house and not being recognized by the neighbors is not reasonable evidence of criminal activity.
What would you have them do when faced with someone who is threatening them with physical harm, confrontational, won’t calm down, and refusing to sit down calmly while they investigate?
They happened in some manner between what the cops said in their latest statement and what the boy said. In both extremes and all situations in between, he didn’t need to be pepper sprayed to protect the officers or the public.
I do not condone that the legal punishment for being stupid and argumentative should be getting pepper sprayed.
However, if theevolving nature of events ends up with someone being stupid and argumentative getting pepper sprayed I consider that a point for karma and free educational opportunity offered by the school of hard knocks and real life consequences.
So what are you suggesting that we treat every citizen (even young black ones) as innocent until proven guilty? Go back to Russia, hippie.
So when they entered the house, they didn’t immediately pepper spray him. They investigated. They asked him for his ID. He produced one, where the address on the ID was different from the house he was in.
Should they have let him go then? His own ID says he doesn’t live there. You think they should just take his word for it?
Probably keep talking to him unless he actually initiates violence.
So, when cops come upon a situation that needs investigating the possible perp is supposed to prove their guilt?
No, your ideas are retarded. Neener neener.
And, thanks for the lecture on the “role of the police.” The police actually have a lot of choices, telepathy not being one of them.
They can say, “hah, neighbor, your report is interesting but unfounded, we’ll keep your call on file.” (not the best policing, but an option)
They can go to the house and watch it for a while, looking for a burglary to occur.
They can go up to the house, knock on the door and introduce themselves to whoever opens the door, and say, “there was a report of an unfamiliar person entering the house. Do you live here? What’s your name? Etc etc.”
. . . they do not need to ask for “proof.” Clearly, not everybody has “proof.” This kid did not have “proof” that he lived in his own home. So, again, baring any actual evidence of crime, a friendly, pleasantly-initiated conversation with the resident should be as far as their police work goes.
This kind of crap is so fucking frustrating.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to the courtroom, not to policing. The police don’t need to wait until someone is proven guilty before they can detain, arrest, or give orders to someone.
(post shortened)
Front door? According to the article linked to in post 173 -
Police arrived at 308 England Avenue, confirmed the above information at the scene with the citizen/caller. The Fuquay-Varina Police entered the home at the garage door where the individual was seen entering the home. The Police announced their presence upon entering the garage door which was unlocked. The Police then entered an interior door which was also unlocked, and slightly open.
So what. It should never be my responsibility to provide documents to the police that I live in my own home, unless there is clearly a crime being committed. If this lets a few clever con-men dupe the occasional easily-fooled officer, so be it.
See my post above. There are ways to follow-up on a call of “unfamiliar looking person walking through the front door of my neighbor’s house” that don’t involve requiring documentation.
Ah. My bad and poor transcribing skills. I still stand by all my opinions, which are based on the fact that he entered the house through an unlocked door, and not by breaking in.