Thanks, Bricker, and Richard Parker.
How odd how differently we interpret the decision. I always read it as “This is just some weird gay thing going on, so we can ignore it.”
I think that if some man had tried to convince police that he should take care of an obviously impaired near naked woman years younger than him, who was claiming he was trying to kill her, the girl would have brought to a hospital, and not even PC’d.
Well, this is just what I’d heard people say. Looking on Wiki, I think you’re right.
It’s not laudable, except insofar as the exercise of our freedoms is a rare thing, rare enough that persons who do so are looked down upon.
What it is, is safer.
Race was never an issue. You have no basis to make this statement. The police responded to a call of suspicious activity. And they investigated it, which you acknowledge is fine. End of story.
Since I didn’t see the event I have no way of answering your question.
What would lead you to believe this rant is even remotely appropriate for Great Debates?
Thank you, I am glad it wasn’t just prejudice on my part.
I’ve been turning the OP situation over in my head a lot. I’m glad a citizen who probably didn’t even know the little girl took notice of her; I’m glad the police took notice, and provided ‘default back-up’; I’m glad the grand-father stood by his rights.
I also think everyone of legal age involved behaved like … jerks. Just a little bit of good manners and good will could have saved everyone a lot of heartburn.
You say that. Then back track and say this:
I thought you said “Race was never an issue.”?
If you didn’t see the event how do you know? Which is it?
Make up your mind man!
Do white grand parents with white grand kids routinely get the cops called on em when they’re out with their grand kids?
I guess that was a little far and apologize for language. And implying you were perhaps a racist.
The police were responding to a call of suspicious activity versus making an arbitrary stop. This thread is about the actions of the police. You can speculate all you want about the caller but that’s a separate issue. The police don’t have the option to blow off calls because the caller is wrong. They have no way of knowing that ahead of time unless there is a history of false alarms.
If someone calls it in then yes. It’s the job of police to follow up on suspicion of abduction. Can you imagine the public outcry if they didn’t and a child disappears? It’s the job of police to prioritize calls and anything dealing with a child tends to get bumped up the list. That’s just common sense.
Thanks.
Pretty much. Had the busybody stepped out her front door and engaged the little girl in a conversation (What kitty did this morning. Do you have kitties? Where is your mom today? Can you introduce me to your friend? A conversation a two year old can probably have - although if shy - the two year old will hide behind the leg of Grandpa - which goes a long way to this not being a stranger abduction) she wouldn’t have bothered to call the police.
I am not sure that the police were being jerks - they didn’t see the “suspicious behavior” and child abduction is a very serious thing. And Grandpa being evasive wasn’t assuring them that all was well.
And him saying “I’m her grandpa” (or if that isn’t accurate enough - I’m babysitting, I’m a family friend) would have diffused the situation.
Standing up for your rights for the good of everyone is a good thing to do - not sure I’d do it with toddler children watching.
I can’t see that the cops did anything wrong. Someone reported a suspicious looking interaction, by which I assume they meant what looked like a possible child abduction. What are the cops supposed to do, ignore it?
I have no doubt that 99% of such reports are false, but god help the cops if they fail to respond and it happens to be that 1%.
Moreover, we have exactly zero evidence that the concern was racially motivated. I presume the relevant portion of the account is this:
The problem here is that the author (and many in this tread) automatically jump to the assumption that because the pair were identified as “[Race 1] man walking down the street holding hands with a [Race 2] toddler”, that was the reason for the allegation of being “suspicious-looking”. We simply do not know what sparked the allegation of being “suspicious”, but having walked toddlers many times, it could easily have been something else - say, the toddler didn’t want to leave the playground and was kicking up a fuss (mine once shouted “help! Help!” when we dragged him off the merry-go-round for lunch - very embarrasing).
Being asked his relationship with the girl is a perfectly reasonable question, he could have cleared it up in two seconds by simply saying “I’m grandpa” or whatever. By acting as he did he made it out to be more than it was. I don’t see this fellow as a champion of civil liberties at all.
Cops are supposed to answer all calls; they don’t know anything other than what the dispatcher said, and people should be allowed to go for walks with their differently-colored grandkids. Both sides on this issue had a basic obligation to themselves and to each other to not be dicks, so that the cops could go chase other criminals, and so the guy could continue on his walk.
“Hey, we got a call.”
“It’s okay, officer, I’m her grandfather.”
“No probs.”
“Peace out.”
I know that we have an obligation to make every little situation into a constitutional crisis, but I don’t know that it’s clear that showing a toddler that she has a constitutional right to give policemen grief outweighs the opportunity to say, “See these men? When we say not to trust strangers, we don’t mean them or firemen. These men will help protect you if you get in trouble, and they were just driving by to see if we were safe.”
Based on my experience, an ID statement such as "I'm grandpa" wouldn't have cleared this up in two seconds. He asserted his civil rights and had the least hassle. If the police felt the situation required further detention, he would have had greater time involved yet still have been acquitted.I somehow doubt that acting confrontational with the cops is the route to “the least hassle”.
Not that “not being hassled” is really the measure of how one should act. If I thought the situation warranted it, I’d cause “hassle” to make a point or to assert rights.
But objectively speaking, this situation did not warrant it. Contrary to the assumptions made by the authour in to OP, I see no real evidence that the cops were acting improperly or infringing on his rights.
It is not a question of being “acquitted” since he was not charged with anything; indeed, the cops must have evaluated him quite correctly as harmless (if annoyingly and pointlessly antagonistic) and let him go - which is in fact exactly what they should have done.
Remember, we have only his side of the story. In that account the cops come off as rude, but he comes off as even more rude - the whole ‘I’m a taxpayer, don’t you guys have REAL crimes to investigate?’ line must have had 'em rolling their eyes - they probably hear that sort of thing ten times a day.
What makes you think that? Here’s what I see in the OP:
So they did answer him - he asked “am I free to go” and they said “no.”
And you might not call it “less than polite”, but I call this being obnoxious:
That’s a great idea! As soon as I hear on the radio that there was a bank robbery in my area, I’ll be driving 70mph in the residential street in front of my house, because of course all the policemen will be out chasing the bank robbers. And when I see an Amber alert on the freeway, I’ll jump in the carpool lane even if I’m alone in the car, because all the highway patrol should be looking for the car mentioned in the Amber alert, and I don’t match that description.
No, he could have cleared it up in two seconds by simply saying “Am I free to go?”. At best, saying “I’m grandpa” would have cleared it up in four seconds, if he had said “I’m grandpa. Am I free to go?”. Assuming, of course, that his claim to be grandpa didn’t cause the police to detain him further.
And again, the police absolutely did two things wrong. First, they got evasive with him when he asked a perfectly reasonable question, prolonging the encounter and stressing the poor kid. Second, they brought three cars to bear on a situation which could have certainly been handled (even in the worst case situation) by one, at a time when they had direct pressing need for those officers elsewhere.
I understand they also like being reminded that you pay their salary.
This was an exercise of rights, in the same way that standing on a streetcorner ranting about jezebels and sodomites is an exercise of free speech—i.e., fits the definition, but doesn’t really help accomplish anything.
First, what business is it of any but the emergency services how many cops reply to a call? Is it somehow a “violation of rights” that three cops answered when one would do? I do not get why this is even relevant. Maybe they just call whoever is closest, and three answered. To my mind, ‘outrage’ would only be appropriate if an emergency call went unanswered or took an unreasonably long time.
Getting hot and bothered on behalf of the cops ‘wasting their own valuable time’ because they respond quickly to what you know after the fact is a bogus call strikes me as unreasonable. A very high percentage of calls cops get through 911 prove to be bogus, but naturally they cannot determine in advance exactly which those are - hence, asking a few quite reasonable questions and assessing the situation before dismissing the incident. Which is, seemingly, exactly what they did, and quite rightly.
Second, what did they say that was “evasive”? I missed that part.
Well obviously not since he did say that and the matter wasn’t cleared up in two seconds.
Just saying “I’m grandpa” (more accurately, “I’m the child’s mother’s godfather and the mother entrusted me with her child”) might not have cleared it up in four seconds either. The police seemed suspicious (whether rightly or wrongly, I can’t say. From what little information in the OP, there doesn’t seem to be justifiable cause for suspicion, but we don’t know what the caller told a dispatcher, and what the dispatcher told the police officer.)
Evasive? Again, from what I see in the OP, the person asked “Am I free to go?” and the response was “No, we want to ask you more questions.” What’s evasive about that?
Saying that they had direct pressing need for those officers elsewhere is something that the police officers can judge better than us. We don’t know why the other two cars stopped - did police officer A ask for backup, did the officers stop because they saw what seemed to be like an irate citizen talking to a female police officer, were they just driving by and curious? I was once stopped at a traffic stop, a police officer was writing me a ticket, and another officer stopped next to us, rolled down his window, and asked the officer writing me a ticket “everything OK here?” I was about to yell through the window “Why aren’t you out catching real criminals instead of siccing two pigs on a poor guy who was only speeding?” but I didn’t. Maybe I should have to exercise my freedom of speech - if I don’t, then who will?
p.s. Malthus said much of what I had to say, so you can ignore this post, but I’m not deleting it because it took me a couple of minutes to type and I hate for all that work to just disappear.
Obviously you are a cowardly betrayer of Constitutional rights. 
What you should have done, is remind them that you are a taxpayer and pay their salaries. Though I like the notion of telling 'em that they have actual crimes to investigate - that’s almost as good. 
As someone who has dealt with the interracial family thing for a long time, and someone involved in a lot of interracial adoption discussions - 90% of the time, it does. The little light goes off in people’s heads - you see it in their eyes. Once in a while, someone demands proof, but its often because of something like little Nigel being too smart for his own good.
Now, much of my experience has been with my own and my friends’ families in the Twin Cities - epicenter for International Adoption, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone with a Korean cousin or a niece from Columbia around here. So this might be very different in other parts of the country. The airport security guard who gave us a bit of trouble was in Orlando - and the border issue Jill talks about has less to do with racism (IMO) and more to do with concern over illegal immigration.