You're Being Detained, Sir, For Babysitting Someone of a Different Race

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Shodan]
. . . No, he was not wrong to have insisted on his full rights. And it is possible that the granddaughter might have wound up less frightened of the police if the lesson taught was that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And maybe “See, honey, the nice policeman wants you to be safe -if you are ever in trouble, ask him for help” is a better lesson than “See that man in a uniform? He is looking to bring you down”.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent suggestion. Well said, Shodan.

To imagine that a 2 year old is going to absorb some civil liberties lessons while Grandpa is arguing with policemen and no doubt voices are raised? Not bloody likely.

102

An excellent story that makes us all think. I suspect nobody did much wrong here, and any ill-will by any party is misplaced.

Given all the stories we hear of the state dropping the ball of child=protection issues, it makes sense the dispatcher sent the call out.* Once that was done, the police had to react, and they seem to have reacted well. The elderly gentleman responded as a citizen is allowed. Nobody did much wrong.

So why is everyone upset?

*Can you imagine what would happen if the dispatcher refused to send the call out and Something Bad happened? I am sure the dispatcher can and has imagined it.

103

I’ve been thrilled on those rare occasions when my son has had a male teacher or teaching assistant. Before he entered 3rd grade, his school called us and said “uh, we’re making classroom assignments for next year … would you object if your son’s teacher was male?”

We found that highly amusing, but later found out that a number of parents had been horrified and did NOT give permission to place their kids in that class.

After recovering from my shock, my response when I heard how many parents objected was, “excellent, now we know that only the kids with cool parents will be in my son’s classroom.” :cool:

He had a great year, and that guy was his favorite teacher to date.

104

Maybe the cops were being somewhat racist and overly assertive here, but I have to say gramps was worse. For Og’s sake, people, it’s just stupid to not try the simple and civil route first and explain yourself a little. Would it be so terrible to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were looking out for a child, not looking to hassle a black senior for the fun of it?

105

Actually, as it’s been revealed, he was a white senior. (Not that it’s good to hassle people of any color or age.)

106

One cop might possibly have been justifiable. But what were the other two cars doing there?

He did explain himself a little: He told the cops his identifying information. Then, having answered a question from the police officer, he asked one of his own (Am I free to go?), whereupon the police departed from civility and did not answer. And as has been explained, him offering any further information (such as the not-technically-true fact that he was the girl’s grandfather) could have had very serious consequences.

107

What gets me is the “three cops.” OK, based on the only information we have (the guy’s recounting), cop#2 was a strutting ass who probably would have thought cop#1 unable to handle things because, you know, she’s a girl :rolleyes:. I find that line of reasoning offensive, but I can see someone trying to be helpful and instead getting in your way (just yesterday I wanted to slag a coworker for doing exactly that, try to help and instead screwing things up).

But seriously, three cops? One cop, ok. If I was being asked politely “what are you doing here” by a cop (or a paired set of cops), and since I’m used to cops having the right to ask politely, I would answer politely. If I see a second cop or set of cops joining the first, I wall up so fast I should get hired as a bricklayer.

108

Sorry, fuck you, Mr. Policeman. (Not you, Sage Rat!) I don’t need a plausible story and I don’t, as a matter of fact, need to tell it to you. I don’t need to be judged on “suspiciousness” when I’m not doing anything wrong, nor on whether I seem “paranoid” when a man with a gun starts invading my constitutional rights!

I don’t care if I match some vague description of a pervert, or if someone thinks I’m suspicious because of my race, or you’re just an asshole who happens to be a cop. None of that matters because once I give you may name, address, and date of birth you either arrest me or let me go. Period. Because I’m an American and that’s what that means. For me. For old men with differently colored grandchildren. For immigrants. For gay couples. Interracial couples. For adoptive parents. For people with headscarves. For people with funny clothes. For people with funny names. For people who carry the Koran. For people who carry a gun. For people who smell like patchouli. For you. For everyone.

109

So what is your suggestion? Should a police officer not attempt to satisfy him/herself that everything is above board when called in to investigate?

110

No cops wasted his time, and scared his granddaughter by being racist scumbags.

111

Sure. They can try to satisfy themselves any way they want. That may include 1) looking at the man/kid, and seeing they seem to be familiar, there’s no sign of stress or force. 2) Asking questions.

But they have to do so within the law. That’s what police are trying to enforce-and that’s what they have to obey to be justified in doing so.

At the moment, the law of the united states does not require I speak to a police officer if I don’t want to. It gives me certain rights if they try to compel me to answer questions. That is as it should be. If you have a problem with that, go repeal the fifth and sixth amendments, and the basic presumption that underlies the constitution-that people are free to do as they wish absent a showing of good cause to infringe on that freedom, made in a process where there is an opportunity to offer a defense, and in which the burden is on the person trying to take your right away.

Again, I’m not taking the view that people who choose to answer questions from police are in any way diluting civil rights. That’s their choice-it’s an EXERCISE of civil rights to use your right to choose who to speak to choose to answer questions from the police.

But it’s similarly such an exercise to refuse to answer questions you’re not legally obligated to answer. On my own account, I usually determine how I answer based on whether the police tell me if I’m free to go or not. I’m polite whichever way they answer-as the guy was in this story. If the officer doesn’t try to play games with me about whether he has a right to detain me, I’ll generally take the time to help him out. If he wastes my time, or tries to intimate he has authority he doesn’t have to force me to do something, that instantly removes any urge I have to co-operate.

It’s simply not being in any way rude, improper, or wrong. to politely refuse to do something a person doesn’t have to do. Here, the very first rude thing that happened here was when the officer refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question while continuing to demand the guy answered the officer’s questions.

It may well have been reasonable (assuming the call wasn’t pure racism) to check out a 911 call (i’ll assume that it was). Given that, it was reasonable to go over to speak to the man, and to ask him for his name and address-which was rightly answered, as in some states we are legally obliged to do. It seems clear from the facts that it shouldn’t have taken much more than that. After that, when the cop started playing games about whether the guy was free to go, I entirely understand why he lost any urge to play nice-I’d have had the same impulse.

112

Investigate what? A man and a child walking down the street together? This is probable cause for a crime now?

No, they shouldn’t. Without extenuating circumstances such as an Amber alert or a rash of kidnappings in the area, an officer should not “investigate” a man and a child walking down the street together, if “investigating” includes anything more than initiating casual contact.

Other things the officer should not “investigate” include a man sitting on his porch whittling a stick, the teenager walking down the sidewalk wearing a trenchcoat or the kitten chasing a butterfly in the front yard. NOTE: This is not an exhaustive list.

113

If the cops want to be legitimate, they have to act within that framework, no matter how “suspicious” an old white guy and a black child are. If they can’t satisfy themselves within the bounds of the law, and have no probable cause that a crime is being committed (in which case they can make an arrest), they have one choice.

  1. Let them go.
    There are no other options within the bounds of the law. Sure, I’d like the police to satisfy themselves that every “suspicious” thing isn’t a crime, too. But if they can’t do so within the bounds of their legal powers, that’s too bad. That’s the cost of having a free society-and I’m happy to have a few disappointed cops, and maybe even a few bad guys who get away, to have a system where even the police abide by the law of the land. If not, who’s to say where they should stop?
114

Explain what evidence they had to believe she was being kidnapped.

The only thing different then then him and her and usual grandparent grandchild pairs was they were different races. Racial profiling is violation of his civil rights. He’s a hero for not taking it.

They should never have made an issue of race at all. They crossed a line and needed to put back into place.

115

What is your suggestion about what a policeman should do when he isn’t satisfied, and 1) doesn’t have probable cause to make an arrest, and 2) can’t legally compel the person he’s stoppped to stay around or answer any other questions?

I suggest he accepts the limits of his legal authority. That may not be satisfying to some of us, but if you don’t like it, go change the law.

116

What about the OP suggests that the policewoman should have been satisfied? She got a call saying that there’s suspicious-looking guy taking a little girl somewhere, when questioned he is reluctant to answer any questions about what relation he has to the girl, and seems to want to get away from the police urgently.

If it’s your job to insure the safety of the general public and you’re serious about that job, why wouldn’t you want to get a satisfactory answer before letting him continue along?

117

Of course you’d want to get a satisfactory answer. There’s nothing wrong with that. But if you can’t get one within the bounds of your legal authority, then it’s just plain too bad for you. As you note, the goal is to measure suspiciousness, to see if it rises to a level of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What is terribly wrong is going beyond your legal authority to do so. You may WANT a better answer before you let these people go along. But if they want to leave, and you have no power to make them stay, that’s the end of the matter. It’s that simple under current law-they have a right to leave, and the cop has no right to keep them. If he has a problem with that, his choices are 1) break the law, or 2) change the law through the political process. End of story.

My point is simple-the cop must prove something (if challenged in court) to have the legal authority to force the guy to stay and answer questions. He has a similar burden to meet to make an arrest.

At the end of the day, if the cop can’t do that, I don’t care if he still feels suspicious or not, if he thinks this is true evil or a walk to the park. Under the law, he has to let them go.

I have a big problem when a cop doesn’t accept that.

118

If I was the cop I’d be suspicious if someone refused to answer a simple question like who are you to this child you are walking with. I understand the points made that the cops had no authority to keep him from walking away based on that and they were out of bounds, but I can understand their discomfort in just saying sure go along after that. That behavior, not the mismatch in skin color, raised the situation to a suspicious level. Most grandparents are proud to identify themselves as grandparents. Maybe they should have let him go but followed him in a car until he reached the address that he had identified was his home and entered it.

Pick your fights. This seems like a silly one.

BTW, like Dangerousa I have an adopted child who is of a different race than I. If I was stopped and questioned I’d be annoyed but I’d answer the question and try to do it a way that minimized the experience as anything bothersome to my daughter. I have plenty of other ways to teach her how to fight for her rights and to demonstrate that Daddy has a spine. (Of course she knows from watching me and her mother interact that my spine is often an optional accessory as well!)

119

We’ve had multiple attempts at child abductions in my metro area and there is absolutely no way on this planet that police are going to ignore a request to investigate. It would be criminal to do so.

I think police should investigate a call about suspicious activity. I’ve done it many times in my neighborhood and I’ve nailed people commiting crimes.

You have nothing to base this on except your personal feelings. The cops have every business following up on a call.

120

No a police officer should absofuckingloutly NOT try to satisfy him- or herself in an investigation. A police officer should try to satisfy the demands of the law. That means they can ask for my information, call that information in, see if it matches the person they have before them, and observe me carefully throughout the process for any signs of a crime that may have been committed. At the end of that process, they have to let me go if they haven’t even been able to produce a clearly articulatable basis for suspicion, no matter how unsatisfied they may be. These things are not up to an officer’s discretion, and for very good reasons.