[quote]orion wrote:
You don’t just have any job, so I would get used to getting told how to do it.[/quote]
We are used to it. We take orders from superiors in our respective departments who get their orders from elected officials who get THEIR orders from the U.S. Constitution. We do not follow the direction of foreign civilians who have neither the legal ability nor qualifications to supervise us.
But that would seem, to me at least, to be quite obvious.
Demo Dick
There is going to be a press conference by the Cambridge Police Dept. in a few minutes.
It seems that the 911 tapes are going to be released.
That was about the most benign 911 call I’ve ever heard.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That was about the most benign 911 call I’ve ever heard.[/quote]
Agreed, the issue of race was brought up by the 911 operator in the form of a question, by which she replied that it might be a Latino, while the other guy was not identifiable because she could not clearly tell from where she was located.
She even said they have some suitcases and might actually live there, but the other person saw them jimmying the door and thought they should call and play it safe.
Somebody’s gonna try n tell me that THIS cop, with this record under these circumstances rolled up looking for a tussle with a black man?
This is all Gates folks and his snobbish uppity fabricated victimhood. With his simple commonly decent cooperation this could have been over in 5 minutes with nobody the worse for the incident. It’s really a shame too because here we are with more unnecessary division and discord where none need exist at all.
I have black customers with small black children and ya know what? They love me. One couple has a 2 year old girl and I can barely work on their computer because that kid is all over me every time I go over there. Giggling and smiling and asking me one thousand questions. She doesn’t see me as white. I’m the fun computer guy who always makes her laugh. It’d be a real pitiful tragedy if she ever grows out of that because of somebody else’s irrational hatred regardless of who it comes from.
[quote]Demo Dick wrote:
So the very moment were there is the slightest tension an officer needs to make an arrest whenever the other person is of a different race?
Sounds like an awesome system to me!
No, and I seriously doubt that you genuinely misunderstood what I was getting at. I don’t think you’re that dense, based on your own ability to formulate an argument. Though, I could be wrong.
The Officer needs to be aware that if he stops and detains a person for any reason, that person may file a complaint based on any number of arbitrary things (not just race), and may lie about the incident as well. Common sense.
So, when said Officer legally detains someone and they clearly indicate that a personnel complaint is on the way, AND the officer is acting in good faith and has articulable probable cause for an arrest, well, what do you think he should do? Walk away and hope that no complaint is made? To expect the Officer to hang himself in IAB by cutting someone a break when he can legally take unbiased enforcement action is just silly.
To not make an arrest or issue a citation lends credibility to a complaint that “the police detained me for NO REASON…they didn’t even write me a ticket or take me to jail, so clearly they had no legal reason to stop me in the first place.”
Demo Dick
[/quote]
Excuse me, but what you are now saying is that everytime that there is some tension between a cop and a citizen, the cop should make an arrest to cover his ass.
Maybe you wrote that, in the case the citizen had been detained and was understandably pissed, the cop should make the arrest to cover his ass? That would be slightly better, but not much.
So what people like Gates should understand is that it is not so much about racism but about a uniformed bureaucrat covering his ass which incidentally involves him being hauled to a police station, at gunpoint, and be thrown in a cage.
And when a cop drags one into jail everytime one threatens him with a complaint, how do you think that that will play out, public opinion wise?
[quote]orion wrote:
Demo Dick wrote:
So the very moment were there is the slightest tension an officer needs to make an arrest whenever the other person is of a different race?
Sounds like an awesome system to me!
No, and I seriously doubt that you genuinely misunderstood what I was getting at. I don’t think you’re that dense, based on your own ability to formulate an argument. Though, I could be wrong.
The Officer needs to be aware that if he stops and detains a person for any reason, that person may file a complaint based on any number of arbitrary things (not just race), and may lie about the incident as well. Common sense.
So, when said Officer legally detains someone and they clearly indicate that a personnel complaint is on the way, AND the officer is acting in good faith and has articulable probable cause for an arrest, well, what do you think he should do? Walk away and hope that no complaint is made? To expect the Officer to hang himself in IAB by cutting someone a break when he can legally take unbiased enforcement action is just silly.
To not make an arrest or issue a citation lends credibility to a complaint that “the police detained me for NO REASON…they didn’t even write me a ticket or take me to jail, so clearly they had no legal reason to stop me in the first place.”
Demo Dick
Excuse me, but what you are now saying is that everytime that there is some tension between a cop and a citizen, the cop should make an arrest to cover his ass.
Maybe you wrote that, in the case the citizen had been detained and was understandably pissed, the cop should make the arrest to cover his ass? That would be slightly better, but not much.
So what people like Gates should understand is that it is not so much about racism but about a uniformed bureaucrat covering his ass which incidentally involves him being hauled to a police station, at gunpoint, and be thrown in a cage.
And when a cop drags one into jail everytime one threatens him with a complaint, how do you think that that will play out, public opinion wise?[/quote]
besides that all I hear is speculation
[quote]Demo Dick wrote:
orion wrote:
You don’t just have any job, so I would get used to getting told how to do it.
We are used to it. We take orders from superiors in our respective departments who get their orders from elected officials who get THEIR orders from the U.S. Constitution. We do not follow the direction of foreign civilians who have neither the legal ability nor qualifications to supervise us.
But that would seem, to me at least, to be quite obvious.
Demo Dick[/quote]
You still do not understand.
They do not hold you to a higher standard.
I do. And everybody else you are to serve and protect.
And if we no longer do that, all you are is another armed thug, in his gang colors and a pimped out car.
[quote]orion wrote:
Excuse me, but what you are now saying is that everytime that there is some tension between a cop and a citizen, the cop should make an arrest to cover his ass.
Maybe you wrote that, in the case the citizen had been detained and was understandably pissed, the cop should make the arrest to cover his ass? That would be slightly better, but not much.
So what people like Gates should understand is that it is not so much about racism but about a uniformed bureaucrat covering his ass which incidentally involves him being hauled to a police station, at gunpoint, and be thrown in a cage.
And when a cop drags one into jail everytime one threatens him with a complaint, how do you think that that will play out, public opinion wise?[/quote]
How in the world do you get that, from this? (Emphasis added since you reply as if you had not seen these):
[quote]So, when said Officer legally detains someone and they clearly indicate that a personnel complaint is on the way, AND the officer is acting in good faith and has articulable probable cause for an arrest, well, what do you think he should do? Walk away and hope that no complaint is made? To expect the Officer to hang himself in IAB by cutting someone a break when he can legally take unbiased enforcement action is just silly.
To not make an arrest or issue a citation lends credibility to a complaint that “the police detained me for NO REASON…they didn’t even write me a ticket or take me to jail, so clearly they had no legal reason to stop me in the first place.”[/quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Excuse me, but what you are now saying is that everytime that there is some tension between a cop and a citizen, the cop should make an arrest to cover his ass.
Maybe you wrote that, in the case the citizen had been detained and was understandably pissed, the cop should make the arrest to cover his ass? That would be slightly better, but not much.
So what people like Gates should understand is that it is not so much about racism but about a uniformed bureaucrat covering his ass which incidentally involves him being hauled to a police station, at gunpoint, and be thrown in a cage.
And when a cop drags one into jail everytime one threatens him with a complaint, how do you think that that will play out, public opinion wise?
How in the world do you get that, from this? (Emphasis added since you reply as if you had not seen these):
So, when said Officer legally detains someone and they clearly indicate that a personnel complaint is on the way, AND the officer is acting in good faith and has articulable probable cause for an arrest, well, what do you think he should do? Walk away and hope that no complaint is made? To expect the Officer to hang himself in IAB by cutting someone a break when he can legally take unbiased enforcement action is just silly.
To not make an arrest or issue a citation lends credibility to a complaint that “the police detained me for NO REASON…they didn’t even write me a ticket or take me to jail, so clearly they had no legal reason to stop me in the first place.”
[/quote]
Well it is pretty obvious to me, just read his last paragraph.
Let us say Prof Gates was detained. Rightfully so. He can prove it is his house. Cop releases him. Both have big egos and start a general dick waving. Cop fears complaint and arrests him.
He does that because, and I quote:
Obviously, once you have detained him and he is pissed, better arrest him. I take it from the horses mouth.
By reading only the last paragraph you are ignoring the entire context that this in reference to where is probable cause for arrest before they indicate that a personnel complaint is forthcoming.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By reading only the last paragraph you are ignoring the entire context that this in reference to where is probable cause for arrest before they indicate that a personnel complaint is forthcoming.[/quote]
No, it was “probable cause for detention”
That is different. If he uses it as synonyms you are right, but to me a “detention” is not an “arrest”.
A detention is what you do to a suspect. They are not free to leave until you know whats up. If they can show that that is their house they are free to go.
An arrest is when he reads you your rights and takes you to jail.
He explained how a detention must become an arrest when the cop wants to save his ass and the detention was, ex ante, justified.
I put the quote in bold print for you and even so, you claim it was different than it was. It was arrest.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I put the quote in bold print for you and even so, you claim it was different than it was. It was arrest.[/quote]
I refer you to his first post addressing me.
Actually he used both, but that was not my point.
My point was that in real live that would lead to people getting arrested. Because even rightfully detained people are angry. Mouthing off to a police officer when you are angry can get you arrested. Then you get hauled to jail because you might file a complaint, understandably pissed that you are.
Now we might hope that no cop would ever interpret “probable cause for arrest” loosely, even more loose than the laws themselves, but would we seriously bet on it?
Your reply to the post in question and your follow replies all ignore what he actually said.
To repeat, he made extremely clear that he was referring to cases where:
There was probable cause for arrest in the first place. (Doesn’t mean the officer HAS to do so, but the case is such that choosing to arrest is completely legitimate.)
After this being the case already, the person says he is going to file a personnel complaint.
You then immediately claimed that this meant things it does not.
Really, go back and read that post, with especial note of the parts I put in bold print, and then see your reply. You really did ignore what he said, completely, and the reply did not follow at all.
Interesting libertarian perspective on the conversation we should be having. Note, it’s not about race:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Your reply to the post in question and your follow replies all ignore what he actually said.
To repeat, he made extremely clear that he was referring to cases where:
There was probable cause for arrest in the first place. (Doesn’t mean the officer HAS to do so, but the case is such that choosing to arrest is completely legitimate.)
After this being the case already, the person says he is going to file a personnel complaint.
You then immediately claimed that this meant things it does not.
Really, go back and read that post, with especial note of the parts I put in bold print, and then see your reply. You really did ignore what he said, completely, and the reply did not follow at all.[/quote]
I guess we have to agree to disagree which, in this case, is not a cheap copout, because I consider Demo Dick to be the final arbiter of the meaning of Demo Dicks posts.
So, he actually could clear that up.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Interesting libertarian perspective on the conversation we should be having. Note, it’s not about race:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html[/quote]
In the wake of both Gates and Obama escalating the arrest into a national debate about race, too many conservatives took the instinctively authoritarian tack represented here by Washington Post staff writer Neely Tucker:
One of the common-sense rules of life can be summed up this way: Don’t Mess With Cops.
It doesn't matter if you are right, wrong, at home or on the street, or if you are white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. When an armed law enforcement officer tells you to cease and desist, the wise person (a) ceases and (b) desists.
The End.
Perhaps on an individual level, this is sound advice. As a general rule, you ought not provoke someone carrying a gun, whether your criticism is justified or not. As a broader sentiment, however, it shows a dangerous level of deference to the government agents in whom we entrust a massive amount of power. And it comes awfully close to writing a blank check for police misconduct.