They had the option of not responding to the call, quitting their job, becoming marine biologists, and singing opera, among other things. Does that mean their entire job is not morally justified in your mind?
That would be a relevant point if XT had made a comment specific to this incident. Sadly, he made a general comment about how people on this board are superior in applying deliberation rather than knee-jerking.
For my money, I think it’s quite legitimately the case that a neighbor could be suspicious and make a report of an intruder, giving cause to police to investigate and enter a home, leading to a detention (in the legal sense), leading to a poor reaction by a legitimate resident of the home, leading to the use of less-lethal methods like pepper spray.
I also think it’s fucking moronic to pretend that race doesn’t have anything to do with each and every step of the chain I laid out above. Pretending that a suspicion of racial bias is “knee-jerking”, rather than a legitimate hypothesis based on empirically validated biases in policing, is at best fucking stupid and at worst racist denial.
Jesus. Is that the yardstick for acceptability now? The kid only had chemical agents sprayed into his face, necessitating an EMT call, but that’s just a bad afternoon?
I don’t know what’s more disturbing. The idea that people will pardon and defend cop harassment and abuse as long as no absolute proof can be furnished that they broke the law? Or the idea that people will fault citizens for reacting with anger and noncompliance to cop harassment and abuse even when it is undeniable the cops broke the law.
As has been pointed out to you by *umpteen thousand *posters, there was NO harassment. Everything the cops did was, again pointed out to you by *umpteen thousand *posters, 100% legal and constitutional.
It sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself. Lol.
Legal and constitutional conduct, even if that is what it was, can be harassing just the same. A moment’s thought might reveal that truth to you.
It’s awesome that you think these two things are orthogonal.
Hamlet: “Yes, they have to submit to the arrest.”
I’ll assume this is a personal viewpoint. Legally, a person does not “have to submit” to an unlawful arrest.
To be sure, it’s best to “submit” given the police’s inherent authority (or acting under mere color of authority, depending on the situation), whether or not on a legal basis and whether or not the interaction is being recorded (I recommend an “always” policy on recording). However, it is not a legal obligation on the part of the arrestee who in good faith believes (s)he is being subjected to an unlawful arrest. (S)he will, almost certainly, be forced to “tell it to the judge [acting as jury, if not a jury]”, because so much as reflexively flexing your arms when being handcuffed will subject a person to a charge of resisting arrest, but people giving into fear of worse and acquiescing to wrongdoing has far-reaching consequences all its own.
Unfortunately, it will take more than a few dozen cases and several years in the news for this to trickle down (rather up) within the legal system in those cases where a prosecutor doesn’t decide to nolle pross a charge, and few people will have the stamina and resources to withstand the system grinding them down.
Right. Clearly, I’m proposing that police should have every right to precede any traffic stop, interview, arrest or casual passing comment with a good dose of pepper spray.
You’re a nitwit.
Of course they could have.
He comes down the stairs, asks what they’re doing in his house. They get his hands up and start frisking him.
WHILE THEY ARE FRISKING HIM, they say, “We had a report of a robbery in progress in this house. We need to be sure there’s nobody else in the house.” In other words, explain to him what’s going on.
He shouts horrible insults at them, in the process saying that they’re in his house.
THEY SAY: Sir, I’m sure we can get this cleared up, as soon as we’ve made sure nobody else is in the house, we can figure out exactly what’s going on.
He’s still mad.
THEY SAY: If you’re supposed to be in this house, we promise no harm is going to come to you.
INSTEAD OF SAYING, “Why is your ID from a different address?” THEY SAY: “Sir, is there anyone we can contact to verify that you live here?”
I mean, this isn’t rocket science. De-escalation is a key strategy for handling aggressive folks. I’m not saying you in your job need to know how to do it, because I don’t know whether your job involves handling aggressive folks–but you should at least know that de-escalation strategies exist.
In general, de-escalation involves empathy and distraction and avoids confrontation, suspicion, and degradation.
Empathy: you acknowledge that the other person is upset in a way that suggests you’re going to work with them to reach a resolution.
Distraction: you ask them a question or show them something that gets them thinking about something other than how pissed off they are.
Non-confrontation: you may need to confront the person, but you minimize that aspect of your work to the purely necessary, seeking alternate strategies wherever possible. If the person is cussing you out, there’s no need to confront them over the cussing; instead, let them have their say.
Suspicion: whatever your suspicion is of the person, you hide it unless it’s absolutely necessary to display it (which it almost never is). Play your cards close until you are ready to make an overwhelming move–in this case, there was no reason to voice suspicion as such (including things like, “Why doesn’t your address match?” or “Why are there no pictures of you on the wall?”); none of this made anyone safer, but on the contrary made the situation less safe.
Degradation: If someone says he’s adopted, ferchrissakes don’t antagonize him needlessly by pointing out his absence from pictures. Don’t treat him like an object in the room.
The idea that they did the best possible under these conditions is nonsense.
Also, a proposal, that I might start in another thread: Oops payments.
Yeah, sometimes I think it’s unavoidable that the cops, based on mistaken information, are going to give someone a massively crappy day. And I understand that if the cops are really awful in how they do that, they can be sued.
But what if there were an intermediate level? If the cops, based on good practice but faulty information, give you a crappy day, you’d be entitled to an Oops payment, or a reverse ticket.
These reverse tickets would be based on the severity of the terrible day they gave you. Did a cop stop and frisk you on the street, based on incorrect information or assumptions about you? Maybe we peg that at a $50 payment. Does a cop burst into your house, no guns drawn? That might be $250. Guns drawn? $500. Does the cop beat you down for no good reason? Medical bills plus $5,000.
These are of course totally out-of-my-ass amounts, but you get the idea. They should be low enough that nobody in their right mind will risk the inconvenience in order to get them (and of course someone who tries to get one will be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, fraud, or a new crime that specifically targets that behavior). They should be high enough that someone who is undergoing that terrible experience can be reminded of the Oops payment they’ll be due if the police action was unwarranted. They should be available only if the victim does not resist arrest (although I’m ambivalent about this, since it could provide an incentive for police to make up resisting-arrest actions; maybe it’s just that someone could simultaneously receive a payment AND be charged with resisting arrest, in those rare cases). And they shouldn’t be counted against a cop, unless the cop shows a pattern of behavior resulting in an outsized number of such payments, in which case that cop might need to re-examine her procedure manual.
You’re the one who characterized a traumatizing event in an innocent person’s life as simply a “bad afternoon” just because he was fortunate enough to not be killed or falsely arrested.
If setting my standards a little more higher than this makes me a nitwit, then I will gladly be a goddamn nitwit.
I think this is the issue that galls me the most in this discussion.
People now expect so little from cops that they consider basic respect and compassion from them as purely optional. When a cop denies someone the courtesy of at least explaining their conduct towards them after entering their home and pointing guns at them, we should unanimously be having a problem with this. Instead what we see is idiots wondering why Currie didn’t just go with the flow like a good little subject and faulting him for expressing his anger or frustration. As if it’s Currie’s reaction that has the power to erode our civil liberties, rather the actions of over-reaching cops.
Well, some people are. You aren’t one of them, as is apparent in your jerking knee to my one liner there which was merely a response to what I quoted and wasn’t intended to discuss the more general discussion in this thread. Something I did pages ago and don’t really see the need to continue.
Quick question. Would it be too douchey of me to call you with the face out for refusing to respond to my most recent post, yet still insisting on creating strawmen and flinging insults like “idiot” around?
I think that means you are a racist.
Not douchey, just pathetic and whiny. Who in the hell are you addressing this question to? Your mama? Good God, if you don’t have the self-respect to fight back when a cop one day tells you to bend over and spread them, at least have the self-respect not to beg for attention on a message board. I’ma need to you rep better for your demographic group (whatever that is) than this.
I must have missed the memo requiring me to respond to anything you’ve written. If you haven’t heard back from me it’s because I’ve grown tired of our dialogue and have better things to do with my time than endlessly volley with you. That’s how this whole message board thing works. It’s like playtime for adults. Voluntary.
Whew, at least I wasn’t douchey.
I tried. I took some advice, toned down my responses, and tried to engage you in an honest, relatively tame debate.
And this is what I get in return from you. You’re too fucking cowardly and too fucking dumb to respond to my post laying out all the numerous mistakes you’ve made. So instead, you fucking slink away and continue to spew your falsities and, not having the spine to respond to actual debate, resort to calling people names.
I should’ve stuck with douchey instead of wasting my time with you.
Dude, no one owes their attention to you. I’ve had to deal with actual real life responsibilities today and haven’t had time to give to detailed backs and forths with anyone. Not just you.
Maybe I would’ve taken the time tonight to respond, but I don’t think there’s much to say to you that hasn’t already been said. Sorry you feel abandoned, but this discussion is just not that serious for me.
This from a grownass man too chickenshit to raise his voice and resist a cop that is violating your rights.
Your butthurtedness is cute though.
This is Broadway quality dramatics.
YWTF, did you ever have a class with one ignorant person who just couldn’t help arguing with the teacher, no matter how wrong she was? I’m betting there was at least one in every class you were ever in.