Even the police’s own report describes the first occurrence of a *physical *act as Currie saying “Get off me man”. Why would that be? :dubious: The next physical act was Taylor saying “Spray”.
Justified how? Who got physical first? And what would justify the officers doing even more, since you think Currie was “lucky”? Is *instigating *violence an appropriate response to being *yelled at *by someone who’s home you’ve entered without permission? Yelled at? Really?
You need to grow the fuck up, like Officer Authoritah has not, maybe take anger management classes or something.
Again and again. I have never said they should not investigate. But, the investigation does not require physical proof of residence to avoid suspicion of criminal activity.
And, the police invaded this kid’s home. They should be apologizing to him the minute he said he lived there. They don’t have to believe him right away, but they should act like they do.
With more care than you did, obviously. Now how about going back over it, ask a grownup about any hard words, and try responding without wishing you had a can to spray me with right now. You do, don’t you, admit it.
Read the report. That’s not remotely what they did. They came in to the house with their guns drawn, shouting that they were the police. As soon as they saw him, they made him put his hands in the air and frisked him. They found his wallet, pulled out his ID, and challenged him on why his address didn’t match. They didn’t answer his questions (like, “What are you doing in my house?” which is, y’know, a legitimate question that they could have answered.)
These guys were acting like knuckleheads. Again, if this hadn’t been a black kid but a white Tea Partier, they might’ve gotten sprayed down themselves.
How about, secure the person in the house until a determination can be made whether his story is accurate and he has a right to be there, or it is not and he doesn’t.
I have a ton of ways I can prove that I belong in my own house excluding the fact that my ID matches, I’m on the utility bills, and I pay the property taxes. How about - that’s where I keep the vacuum, and the lightbulbs are over there. This is my room, here’s my underwear in the third drawer from the top, cups are on the left of the kitchen sink, and there’s episodes of Breaking Bad on the DVR.
And if he’d exercised his Second Amendment rights, he’d have had a more effective way to protect himself from the jackbooted thugs of the tyrannical government.
So according to the cops’ own report, they entered the home uninvited. Just opened the door and walked right in. No indication they even knocked or announced themselves. Interesting.
And then they proceeded to search the premises without even asking if they could do that. Even more interesting. And when Currie reacted like anyone would react would when confronted with armed interlopers, he was physically assaulted, handcuffed, and pepper sprayed.
Currie might’ve hit the jackpot. I’m almost jealous.
What opportunity did they have to de-escalate? With a report of a burglary, they need to ensure their own safety. You’ll note from the report that they check him for weapons, checked his ID, and asked him to sit down while they finished clearing the house. He didn’t sit down long enough for the two cops upstairs to finish before getting in the face of the one cop left downstairs to watch him.
Touched his arm? The cop is there on his own watching a person who may or may not be a burglar, and the guy gets angrily up in his face and the cop is supposed to… what? Not handcuff him? Wait to get punched in the face?
I’m trying to figure out why someone thinks the police report will be a repository of reliable and accurate information. A police officer is no less or more likely to lie than the alleged criminal. In my not-inconsiderable experience, I’ve yet to come across a report involving a criminal matter that is accurate and without material flaw (including flat-out falsehoods or misinformation that cannot be attributed to reasonable misperception or honest mistake). What do you expect the report to say under the circumstances, esp. where the police does not immediately say “it’s under investigation” but instead come out and declare X-Y-Z is so?
If not telling the truth, one presumes that the police checked the house for video and audio recordings before they decided on a particular story or strategy (whether that included baiting the object of their scrutiny into doing something stupid or knee-jerk, which is also a routine procedure).
Sounds like someone is awfully naive (as I used to be long ago and far away).
Cops – like virtually all humans – will lie about the dumbest things when they have very little incentive and plenty of disincentive (unintended consequences), never mind something that would damage reputation and career-endingly serious.
Same as the most recent teenager killing, this time in St. Louis where, for those who do not understand the case law as recognized in most jurisdictions, allegedly or actually running away from a cop or a cop car coming or driving toward you does NOT … repeat does NOT … qualify as “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has taken place or is taking place.
As for the most recent death, I allow for people occupying a particular bubble – whether wittingly or in wilful denial or wishful thinking – and being entirely resistant to the reality that a certain segment of any metropolitan police force is not above the use of a throw-down gun as/when a situation requires. Of course, in this day and age that’s quite a lot more difficult to get away with than in the past. Like the Whitey Bulger case, it takes quite a few criminal acts of conspiracy and misfeasance.
You do not know that is what occurred. You make an assumption that seems biased.
You do not know that is what occurred. You make an assumption that seems biased.
Not reasonable. They are not going to stake out a house with an unattended suspect. It is just not a reasonable thing to do. And until they know the kid belongs, he is suspect.
I think there is a dramatic difference between a burglary call and a suspected burglary call reported by the neighbors, whose only evidence is entry of the house by someone they didn’t recognize.
If the neighbor had seen someone break in, then entering the house with guns out is appropriate. There is no evidence of burglary when the cops show up. It should have been a house-call to make sure everything was above board. Knock on the front door. Say hello. Introduce yourselves. Ask some questions.
Can I settle for non-racist ones? As I’ve said, they should have treated him like a human, a misunderstanding, and detained him until they could make a positive ID but without escalating it. If he was right, they should have reasoned, he has a good reason to be angry and agitated. Take that into account and let him blow off a little steam. But instead they saw that he was black
Where are you getting that? I just read the police report again. No mention of them drawing their weapons before entering, before asking the kid some questions.
The link in the OP doesn’t mention guns drawn before entering.
Oddly, it mentions the owner left the door open for him. Why? Why wouldn’t an 18 yr old resident of the house not have his own key?
Yep. You’re right. They totally should have handcuffed him. But the cops should have never entered the home uninvited in this specific situation in the first place. There was no evidence of criminal activity. Just a person the neighbors don’t recognize entering the house through normal channels.