Walking in the morning while being black.

[BackAgain]

In no state in our Union may a police officer conduct a search of your person or property absent probable cause.

 

[Couchpotato]

Sure they can walk up and ask anything they want, but without probably cause I don't have to answer and they can't just willy nilly search my car, house or anything else.

I never said they could. But they can ask.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

He looked white to me...or mostly white.

And his last name (Sexton) is not a Hispanic name.

So you are saying he experienced what black folks do all the time.

 

[Couchpotato]

In no state in our Union may a police officer conduct a search of your person or property absent probable cause.

They can if you consent.

 

[Marener]

You have not answered my question and I asked you first

The choice is between the adult and the child

And you choose the adult

It’s a false choice because the child was never in any danger.

The only danger in the situation was the adult being deprived of constitutional rights.

The only violation of law came from the police.

Ask honest questions.

 

[Vastator]

This is one of those awkward moments, when I find myself agreeing with people I typically disagree with. While those I typically agree with, seem to be supporting positions we've never typically supported. The law is the law. And rights are rights. If we can't all agree, and adhere to that... then fuck it! We all might just as well go Mad Max vigilante...

 

[Couchpotato]

So you are saying he experienced what black folks do all the time.

I know a lot of black people. None of them is ever randomly stopped on the street and questioned by police officers. This is a class issue not a racial one.

 

[buttercup]

So you are saying he experienced what black folks do all the time.

I'm not arguing with that.

In this particular case, it was a cop who has a history of complaints and either didn't know the law or didn't care, he was on a power trip.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So you are saying he experienced what black folks do all the time.

Whites get stopped to in situations like this.
I can see the cop taking an interest in an adult male wandering around at 5:30 in the morning with a young child. Questioning him is fine but cops have a responsibility to actually follow the law. The cop let his emotions do the thinking

 

[BackAgain]

They can if you consent.

Obviously. But they cannot do so absent consent if there is no probable cause. (By the way, all general rules have exceptions. Accordingly, let’s also acknowledge the so called “exigency” exception.)

If a cop has a crucial deadline involving the likely death of a kidnap victim, or maybe a threat of a terrorist bombing endangering any life, the usual rule against such police searches might be properly suspended.

What happened as seen in the OP doesn’t involve any exception (at least nothing apparent in what was shown). That person had his rights violated.

 

[Mac-7]

Obviously the police were wrong in this case

But the the situation with the man and the child is different

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm pretty certain a skilled, trained cop, could discern that, and know how to handle it, without breaking the law himself and squashing another citizen's right to move freely...

Again I don't think the cops broke the law. It is their job to check out suspicious things. If they can't do that, there is no deterrent to crime at all. Again if that boy had not been his son--I can't imagine anyone getting a little kid up at dawn to go for a walk so that alone looked odd however legitimate it might have been--the cops might have averted a tragic crime. And the child moved some distance away from the man when the cops were approaching which I also thought unusual.

I know that it is common practice to temporarily cuff people in an investigation of suspicious circumstances. Was that proper this time? I'm not sure. I do know it is illegal in all 50 states and DC to resist arrest which the guy obviously did.

 

[Couchpotato]

Whites get stopped to in situations like this.
I can see the cop taking an interest in an adult male wandering around at 5:30 in the morning with a young child. Questioning him is fine but cops have a responsibility to actually follow the law. The cop let his emotions do the thinking

Which is why this is a class issue not a racial one.

White guys in bad neighborhoods get stopped by the police just like black guys in bad neighborhoods. Wealthy black guys in nice neighborhoods dont just like the wealthy white guys .

 

[progressive hunter]

Obviously the police were wrong in this case

But the the situation with the man and the child is different

in both cases the cops were wrong,,

and youre still a jackboot nazi wannabe that doesnt give one shit about constitutional rights,,

 

[Foxfyre]

What was the reasonably articulable crime you think he had committed? Suspicious isnt a crime. Walking down the street at an "odd time" isnt a crime. Being on a street near storage units isnt a crime.



He doesnt need a reason. All the cop had to do was follow the law. It's not the citizen's job to make nice with the police. It is the police officer's job to follow the law. He's not required to show him his ID nor give him his name. He's not required to tell him where he's coming from, going to, or doing. He's not required to tell him where he lives.


Yes so long as the man did what he was told the police officer would allow him to keep walking down the street. Do you read the shit you write?

By asserting his rights that encouraged confrontation?


Is walking with your kid outside a felony or a misdemeanor? It wasn't dark out. Does it go from misdemeanor to felony if the suns not out? Maybe that' why they dont do trick or treating after dark now..

As I have explained to others I choose not to respond to chopped up posts that destroy content and context. Or those that put words in my mouth I didn't say.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Since I have nothing to hide I would have produced my ID

I'll bet you save a fortune on window curtains, too.

 

[Mac-7]

It’s a false choice because the child was never in any danger.

You mean no obvious danger such as neing held at knifepoint

The cop should have questioned the child which he failed to do

Which is why I dont object to some non judicial punishment

The point is not to protect some assholes right to privacy but instead to protect the child

 

[Couchpotato]

As I have explained to others I choose not to respond to chopped up posts that destroy content and context. Or those that put words in my mouth I didn't say.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

 

[leftwinger]

Kind of extreme, just to get the street police to follow the law, don't you think? You simply do not lean toward win/win scenarios. I actually haven't been abused by law enforcement since the mid/late 1970s, though I have met with them many times, even at my home, assisting in investigation a couple of times. I guess, locally, we do insist on cops performing to standards within the law, and it works out, saving us a ton of payouts on lawsuits and any bad publicity for local law enforcement.

Right. What works for you in TENN is the same as all big cities with ten million or more.

Sure they can walk up and ask anything they want, but without probably cause I don't have to answer and they can't just willy nilly search my car, house or anything else.

Again, see the Polly Klass story. Hope its not your daughter tied up in the trunk and the Police are too scared of the armchair QB and lawyers to ask questions of a street thug.

 

[Mac-7]

in both cases the cops were wrong,,

and youre still a jackboot nazi wannabe that doesnt give one shit about constitutional rights,,

The difference is that the man was on a public street not in his private home

If he had given his id maybe they would have arrested him for bench warrants

Or maybe not

But either way they could have been reasonably sure that the child was ok