Dancing in public while black

[Lplus]

Double standards? Does that mean MeadMaker has wide police powers to as well as a duty to protect and serve? And is MeadMaker likely to fire on the cop for making a furtive movement and enjoy police protection and free representation, if his case were somehow to go to trial? Wait, can he also detain and question a cop he finds suspicious?

Yeah, I think there are double standards.

Not relevant to the point I was making.

Not necessarily a double standard. First of all, the cop has voluntarily put himself in a position where, at least at work, he is expected to adhere to standards that might not apply when he's not. It's not the only job in the world where cold coffee and a nagging wife are poor excuses for bad performance on the job. And second, a satisfactory and civil answer was given to the operative question. The cop asked what he was doing, and he gave a reasonable answer. Barring suspicion of anything else, it should be enough. (..e.t.a. and if there is suspicion, then I think the cop owes the citizen a clear explanation of what that is, and why he fits it. Cops need to get off their high authoritarian "need to know" horses and explain to people what they're doing! People are really often quite agreeable if they understand what's going on.) After all, we're told over and over again that this is exactly what we should do when we need to use the phone, and in many cases penalized if we don't.


While it's probably prudent to go along with the cop and give him what he wants, it is in fact not necessary and might easily be viewed as excessive invasion of one's right to be left alone, and the demand for ID goes beyond the expectation of civil exchange, which was met if the cop asked politely "what are you doing," and the civil answer was "this legal thing."

Meadmaker reckons he should be able to tell the cop to get lost if he feels like it - ok fine, but perhaps he can expect the cop to get shirty if he does. It's called bad manners. If he doesn't respect the cop, why should the cop respect him? Simply saying the cop is paid to take the abuse and has lots of perks doesn't cut it. No wonder the cops hate joe public if that's the case.

Wouldn't you hate the public if you were told you had to take all their abuse and keep your mouth shut? Damn sure I would.

 

[bruto]

Not relevant to the point I was making.



Meadmaker reckons he should be able to tell the cop to get lost if he feels like it - ok fine, but perhaps he can expect the cop to get shirty if he does. It's called bad manners. If he doesn't respect the cop, why should the cop respect him? Simply saying the cop is paid to take the abuse and has lots of perks doesn't cut it. No wonder the cops hate joe public if that's the case.

Wouldn't you hate the public if you were told you had to take all their abuse and keep your mouth shut? Damn sure I would.

I think you missed my point, or maybe I didn't make it well, or maybe you or I misread Meadmaker's point. Meadmaker reports that he answered the initial, legitimate question the cop asked, and did so civilly. He did not initiate abuse. When he said he had stopped to make a phone call, the transaction should have been complete. If the cop had any further suspicion it was incumbent on him to say what it was and why.

MM then reports that when asked for information that he was not actually obligated to provide, he was nice, but avers that he need not have been. At this point, I think he's right. Whether or not it's department policy to ask for license and whatnot, in order to make a report, it's a violation of a citizen's right to be left alone when doing nothing wrong, and it really is not any of the cop's business to take (e.t.a. perhaps better put "to require" ) that information. It's still nice to be nice, and prudent, and MM probably made the right decision, but if a citizen is not nice when asked for things he should not be asked for, I contend that there's no double standard.

Even if a cop asks very nicely "may I please act inappropriately and violate your rights" I don't think the refusal needs to be polite.

As for respect, I think that's a red herring. Sure, MM is permitted not to respect the cop, and the cop is just as permitted not to respect him - as a person. But he's a cop, and if his personal dislike of MM leads him to act illegally or improperly, that's a different story. There's a whole lot of difference between saying something on the order of "same to you buddy," and the all-too-often equation cops seem to make, that mutual respect means you say "yassuh boss" or I kill you.

 

[Belz...]

I firmly believe that before you can charge with "Resisting Arrest" you should have to have a charge that you can actually arrest for. If you can not articulate a valid law and charge for an arrest, then the person you are trying to illegally detain should have every right to resist that illegal arrest, and Judges should be throwing any such charges out instantly. And any cop that arrests purely for resisting arrest should be drummed out of the force.

Agreed. It seems like some generic dirt they can put on record just out of spite.

 

[Thermal]

Not relevant to the point I was making

Far more relevant than you think. The cop in entrusted with great powers, not the least of which is broad discretion with deadly force. As such, he needs to keep a cool professional demeanor far more than the average person. So yes, a higher degree of politeness is mandatory. You seriously can't see that a cop pissy because of his wife or coffee can be taken as a standalone threatening demeanor?

Meadmaker reckons he should be able to tell the cop to get lost if he feels like it - ok fine, but perhaps he can expect the cop to get shirty if he does. It's called bad manners. If he doesn't respect the cop, why should the cop respect him? Simply saying the cop is paid to take the abuse and has lots of perks doesn't cut it. No wonder the cops hate joe public if that's the case.

Wouldn't you hate the public if you were told you had to take all their abuse and keep your mouth shut? Damn sure I would.

No, I wouldn't. Something about that 9mm at my hip would allow me to not be phased at some random's rudeness. Who cares? Many people don't like or trust cops, and for damn goid reasons. Respect is earned.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok, so you reckon you shouldn't have to be polite to the cop, but I suspect you expect him to be polite to you, even though he has no idea who you are or why you happened to be parked up and have been reported as looking suspicious, and even though he may also be in a bad mood, cause he was just about to go off duty and now his coffee is going to be cold and his wife is nagging him and his kids are a pain and so on and so forth.....

Double standards?

Not in the least.

I expect all people to be polite at all times. When I say "expect", what I mean is that being polite is the desired, ideal, behavior. So I expect the police to be polite to me. I expect me, and others, to be polite to policemen.

And if someone isn't polite, that isn't an excuse to hit someone, threaten someone, or commit any sort of act of violence against the impolite person.

It doesn't matter whether the impolite person is a cop, or someone being questioned by a cop. Being impolite is not a crime, and is not an excuse for violence or threats.

And being polite is not the same thing as being submissive.

 

[Darat]

Thus the officer is aiding and abetting him in committing the offense and should be arrested.

That is the pretzel logic that seems to be used.

 

[Darat]

Ok, so you reckon you shouldn't have to be polite to the cop, but I suspect you expect him to be polite to you, even though he has no idea who you are or why you happened to be parked up and have been reported as looking suspicious, and even though he may also be in a bad mood, cause he was just about to go off duty and now his coffee is going to be cold and his wife is nagging him and his kids are a pain and so on and so forth.....

Double standards?

Nope, a police officer is a paid public servant, she is paid to be polite to me, paid to help me. I am not paid to be polite or helpful to her. Now even for a British person I tend to be polite and helpful so my default is to be polite to everyone but there is no obligation on me to be so to a paid public servant.

 

[Darat]

Might as well not bother to stop then.

Why, I certainly would assume there was a reason the police officer wanted to speak to me, why not help if I can?

 

[Meadmaker]

Nope, a police officer is a paid public servant, she is paid to be polite to me, paid to help me. I am not paid to be polite or helpful to her. Now even for a British person I tend to be polite and helpful so my default is to be polite to everyone but there is no obligation on me to be so to a paid public servant.

That is an important modification to my previous answer.

A private citizen who is impolite to a cop should have no consequences, other than the cop not liking him, or social condemnation from those who witness the impolite behavior. A police officer who is impolite to a private citizen should face no criminal or other legal action. However, the cop is also acting as a paid professional during the interaction, and so may face professional consequences if his behavior does not meet standards imposed by his employer.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think you missed my point, or maybe I didn't make it well, or maybe you or I misread Meadmaker's point. Meadmaker reports that he answered the initial, legitimate question the cop asked, and did so civilly. He did not initiate abuse. When he said he had stopped to make a phone call, the transaction should have been complete. If the cop had any further suspicion it was incumbent on him to say what it was and why.

MM then reports that when asked for information that he was not actually obligated to provide, he was nice, but avers that he need not have been. At this point, I think he's right. Whether or not it's department policy to ask for license and whatnot, in order to make a report, it's a violation of a citizen's right to be left alone when doing nothing wrong, and it really is not any of the cop's business to take (e.t.a. perhaps better put "to require" ) that information. It's still nice to be nice, and prudent, and MM probably made the right decision, but if a citizen is not nice when asked for things he should not be asked for, I contend that there's no double standard.

Even if a cop asks very nicely "may I please act inappropriately and violate your rights" I don't think the refusal needs to be polite.

As for respect, I think that's a red herring. Sure, MM is permitted not to respect the cop, and the cop is just as permitted not to respect him - as a person. But he's a cop, and if his personal dislike of MM leads him to act illegally or improperly, that's a different story. There's a whole lot of difference between saying something on the order of "same to you buddy," and the all-too-often equation cops seem to make, that mutual respect means you say "yassuh boss" or I kill you.

Spot on.

 

[pgwenthold]

I do want to know why it is "departmental policy" to get the driver's license number for people who have stopped on the side of the road to take a phone call.

To make sure the LEO is making real stops and not padding numbers?

The officer could just file a report: "Investigated report of a suspicious car on side of the road. Subject had pulled over to talk on cell phone."

Why is any more needed?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

… If you demand to know what charge you are under arrest for? That's resisting.

Wait. Just want to check this. <rubs eyes> Oh. Still says demanding to know what you're being arrested for is resisting arrest.

That is messed up. It's the most reasonable thing in the world to have it explained why anyone is arresting you. I'm genuinely taken aback.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wait. Just want to check this. <rubs eyes> Oh. Still says demanding to know what you're being arrested for is resisting arrest.

That is messed up. It's the most reasonable thing in the world to have it explained why anyone is arresting you. I'm genuinely taken aback.

it is indeed messed up.

And just in case anyone thinks that particular thing is literal policy, the real statutes are usually very vague. In practice, "resisting arrest" can be anything that shows hesitation, confrontation, or anything other than meek, unquestioning, acceptance and submission is considered resisting.

Apparently there is also a difference between a misdemeanor level resistance and a felony resistance, and laws vary from state to state on exactly what has to happen before you can be charged with each level.

 

[rockinkt]

I firmly believe that before you can charge with "Resisting Arrest" you should have to have a charge that you can actually arrest for. If you can not articulate a valid law and charge for an arrest, then the person you are trying to illegally detain should have every right to resist that illegal arrest, and Judges should be throwing any such charges out instantly. And any cop that arrests purely for resisting arrest should be drummed out of the force.

^This^

Resisting arrest is also added to many charge sheets as something that can be "dealt down" later when prosecutors pretend they're Monty Hall.

 

[Meadmaker]

I do want to know why it is "departmental policy" to get the driver's license number for people who have stopped on the side of the road to take a phone call.

To make sure the LEO is making real stops and not padding numbers?

The officer could just file a report: "Investigated report of a suspicious car on side of the road. Subject had pulled over to talk on cell phone."

Why is any more needed?

I think the actual policy is more likely to be to get the name and address, and I can see why they would want that.

So, it is reported that there is a suspicious character on the street. All of those calls create a record. These days, it's a recording. Now, there is a record that the police have been called. Then, they want to talk to a human being, and write down some sort of record that they followed up on the call, so that if they are audited by higher ups, they can have documentation that they responded to citizen complaints, rather that saying, "I dunno. I drove by and didn't see anything." By asking for my name and address, they can right down "Meadmaker, 123 North First Street, was found in the vehicle. He stated he pulled over to talk on his cell phone" Now they have a record that everything was done properly. Also, if, later in the day, it turns out that a house was burglarized in the neighborhood, they can check again to make sure that I wasn't also spotted there.

I don't really object to them asking, but my point is that they don't have a right to demand it. If I decide not to cooperate, that's me being a pain in the neck. It is not me being a criminal.

At the time of the incident, I was actually unemployed, and the call was from a recruiter, arranging an interview. I wonder what would have happened if the cop walked up and I said, "I'm sorry officer, this is an important call. You will have to wait."

I know that the answer should be that he should think. "Great. Another one of those. Fine." But I doubt that would have been the result, and it would be even less likely if a dark skinned person did the same thing.

 

[pgwenthold]

I disagree. "Suspicious character" means nothing. What is the character suspected of doing?

If there is a report of criminal activity in the area, then yeah, get their name. But in the absence of anything nefarious to be suspected of? ********.

Especially after confirming that the person had a perfectly fine reason to be there (hell, it's actually commendable!), there is nothing to follow up on

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What are you on about? He did stop dancing, and he did explain what he was doing.

People believe there must have been a legit reason for everything these cops do - badly behaved cop apologist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assaulting a police officer in most places while being arrested does you no favours.

Tbf it is virtually the same thing as resisting arrest and just worded differently.

Still police word against yours

Used to be.

There are so many videos that have come to light now, it's going to be hard for cops to keep lying about their bad behavior.

They could have just stopped and talked to the guy, he wasn't doing anything. So what's with the cops and their bizarre suspicions? People have a hard time believing this stuff happens. They think there must have been more to it, the cops must have some reason.

The only reason they had from what it looks like is the guy didn't grovel appropriately enough for the cops' taste. Once they got off on their "stop resisting" mentality, the guy became a criminal. It didn't dawn on them to deescalate and simply listen to the man, he was dancing in the street, period, end of story.

Or the alternative, he was black, must be up to something.

This was a couple months ago. It got very little attention. Now we see what goes on all the time all over the country.

BRING OUT THE VIDEOS! People need to see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why, I certainly would assume there was a reason the police officer wanted to speak to me, why not help if I can?

Because when the man tried, the cops' preconceived belief they had a reason to be suspicious pretty much got in the way.

 

[Sherkeu]

I disagree. "Suspicious character" means nothing. What is the character suspected of doing?

If there is a report of criminal activity in the area, then yeah, get their name. But in the absence of anything nefarious to be suspected of? ********.

Especially after confirming that the person had a perfectly fine reason to be there (hell, it's actually commendable!), there is nothing to follow up on

It is a bit bizarre though, isn't it? Who cares about the man's color or race?
He did not have a home on that street and he did not just stop a minute or two while on an exercise route. He was doing these dance performances on this particular residential street on a regular basis?( At least long enough that he was still doing it when the call was made and when the police car arrived.)

If that happened in front of my home on a regular basis, especially with young children in my home, I would be somewhat concerned for the man's mental health. It is not illegal, but certainly not normal behavior.

I would not care if he was some tiny 90yo chinese man doing tai chi moves. Why is he doing it in front of my home every day? Something is 'off'. Is this an area devoid of a local park?

If there seems to be some eccentric person doing prolonged dance moves just past my lawn, I'm probably not letting my kids out for a bike ride around the block. Unless I know the person. Just telling the truth here.

(I have 2 Fragile X brothers next door- but I know their quirks and have adjusted to some additional noise. I do need to explain it to visitors though to put them at ease.)

I do not condone any violence of course, but mental health is an issue police need to be better equipped to handle.