I know people mean well when they talk about being extra careful around cops etc.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

but black people don't get shot because of carelessness or rudeness or whatever.

they get shot because they are black and because cops have no accountability whatsoever.

so asking black people to be careful, does not in any way really help them, since they have never been the real problem.

Racism, lack of accountability, powerful people closing ranks, prosecutors who need to remain on good terms with police departments, those issues are the problem.

[thesquanderer]

1. To some extent you're right, but I think also being extra careful increases odds of survival.

It's not like these cops--even the very worst of them--are killing every single black guy they come across. So the less of any kind of "excuse" someone gives them, the better. In some cases, probably nothing will help, as you suggest... but there are other cases where something might make a difference.

[ret5hd]

3. I think they should watch how they dress.

[uppityperson]

8. What do you mean?

[tblue37]

13. It's an analogy with warnings to women about avoiding rape. nt

[uppityperson]

14. That's what I am thought, but didn't want to assume

[yallerdawg]

2. There were a number of BLM protesters open-carrying at Dallas march.

The NRA argument that "good people with guns can stop bad people with guns" doesn't actually intersect with reality.

What would happen to any black there if he or she started firing, much less firing into buildings?

Given the right to keep and bear arms, if the Dallas police threatened an armed law-abiding citizen, would that citizen now have the right to self-defense while defending themselves from an 'active shooter'?

Given the two examples this week of two legally armed citizens being executed by the police, what does 'extra careful' mean? No 'white rights' at all?

Where does this all end?

[heaven05]

4. I agree the last paragraph

has always been the real problem.

[hobbit709]

5. I'm white and I'm careful around cops.

Back in 60's and early 70's I was harassed more than once for DWLH-Driving While Long-Haired.
Nothing like getting pulled over, getting yanked out of your car, searched both personally and your car-more than once at gunpoint, and then getting to put everything back in your car out on the road to give you an attitude about the pigs.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. Yes, and being careful works well for while people

Which is why people advise being careful, because we usually generalize from our own experiences.

[dynamo99]

50. Being careful improves the odds for everybody.

It's just that the odds start off a lot better for white people.

Cops should be treated like rattlesnakes. They are good for the ecosystem, but they need to be treated with great care, they're dangerous.

[AgadorSparticus]

79. I can totally relate. Not long ago, we were pulled over.

My ex was speeding 15mph like every one else. My ex is also Indian, 6'3", and dark skinned. The cop came up to the window ramped up. He was PISSED and very aggressive...to the point that it scared my daughter. My ex apologized 3 times and spoke in a very non threatening, soothing tone. My ex apologized THREE times before the cop calmed down. My ex had to calm HIM down. This is all for a speeding ticket, mind you.

And so, last month we embarked on social and racial relations in America with our daughter. We had to explain how you have to be careful because people are racist and judge you unfairly. And because of that, you have to be extra careful and talk in a non threatening manner.

And despite it all, I still believe in the good cops. We just need to get rid of the bad apples.

[uppityperson]

6. I agree, and am one of those people who you are talking about, doing the warning to be extra careful

I didn't mean it in any way to say that people are the problem as it is obvious they are not. The problem is the issues you have in your last sentence.

I also understand how you might think I, and others, are guilty of victim blaming ("if only you were careful&quot . I am sorry, that is not what I meant and apologize for coming off as that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. ...

I didn't think you were. I'm sure mothers are warning their kids just as you were. None of us want to feel HELPLESS.

[Igel]

60. When I was in driver's ed--this must have been summer '75--

I was told the following by a white guy with graying hair.

If you drive and you're told to pull over, pull over.

Stay in the car, hands on the wheel, until you're told otherwise. If you're told otherwise, do what you're told, and only do what you're told. If you aren't clear about that, ask for clarification nicely. If you can't do that, explain calmly why you can't do that. "I'm sorry officer, I can't hand you my driver's license because it's in my duffel bag in the back seat." Don't be angry; if you're angry towards towards another human being, they tend to return it--and it's good to say "they should be better trained," but you get the human being in uniform that you get. Perhaps he's a saint. Perhaps his wife left him yesterday after killing his dog and putting sugar in his gas tank. If you've had a bad day, sorry, but do the best you can. It's a transaction, like buying a milkshake. The goal is to get to the point where he says you can go or says you can call your lawyer.

The one thing you might want to consider doing, as you're pulling over, is rolling down the windows and turning on the interior lights if it's dark outside. But do not do this once the officer is out of the car.

The class was all white, all working class, all kids, almost all with long hair and ratty clothes because that was the style. Yes, we got "the talk", just because the risk is too high, but without the "you're at special risk because everybody's out to get you" part. It's fine to look at differential risks, but that is easily taken to mean "no risk for you, all the risk is for us."

BTW, it's useful to compare now with history. http://www.cjcj.org/news/8113

/image-full;size$500,383.ImageHandler

[MH1]

7. Yes, but -- never mind.

Editing this because I realized I was missing the point of your post.

I agree with your post completely. It's NOT due to someone "not being careful enough", it's due to the bias in the system. As a black person you are much more likely to be killed in an encounter with police no matter how careful you are.

That said OF COURSE you are going to be as careful as possible to reduce their excuses. But it still may not be enough.

And that sucks.

[MohRokTah]

9. The careful bit is about attempting to increase your odds of survival in the encounter.

There is no guarantee you will survive no matter how polite, slow, careful, and courteous a black person is in an encounter with the police. It's all about increasing the odds of survival because every encounter a black person has with a cop is potentially life threatening.

[shadowrider]

16. This

[malthaussen]

74. Used to be, in police training...

... the officers were advised to be so courteous and professional that they would be thanked after issuing a ticket.

-- Mal

[cyndensco]

109. So according to this gun-carrying, hoodie-wearing dude,

a black person who is respectful to a cop during a traffic stop will only be physically restrained or shot 1 out of 10 times. How does he know this? Because his traffic stop was so positive not only wasn't he shot, he even thanked the officer. Tell that to Philando Castile.

This guy doesn't get it. I'm glad he survived his stop. Shit, I survived one, my husband several and my sons one or two. Guess there is no reason to be concerned about the others, yet we are.

I see fox news in his future soon.

[ismnotwasm]

10. K&R

[tblue37]

11. Philando Castile did everything right but still got killed. nt

[Igel]

61. We think.

Depends who you trust when the two eyewitnesses disagree.

Notice that in fact there's no need to trust either.

[tblue37]

12. Basically, cops have to be responded to as though they are dangerous wild animals.

IOW, the cops and cop culture are the problem, not what their victims do, just as what a rape victim wears or does is not the cause of rape.

[shadowrider]

15. Any time, ANYONE is stopped by the police, the following etiquette should be observed:

1) Be polite
2) Keep your hands at the 10 and 2 position on the steering wheel unless otherwise instructed
3) Answer questions with "Yes sir", "No sir", "Yes ma'am", "No, ma'am"
4) This varies state to state. If the state you're stopped in requires you to inform the officer you have a firearm, do so. Tell the officer where the firearm is but DO NOT move your hands from the steering wheel. If the state does not require you to inform the officer, answer honestly if he/she asks. IF the firearm is in the center console and the officer asks for documentation and your wallet is in your right back pocket (for women the purse is on the passenger seat), inform the officer the firearm is in the center console and you have to move your arm in that direction to get what he/she is asking for. Let them decide what you need to do.
5) Provide all required documentation. Insurance, license, ccw permit if you have one, registration
6) BE POLITE and DON'T argue.
7) Most (not all) confrontations begin when the subject of the traffic stop adopts an attitude (which only escalates the confrontation). Resist this urge. (See numbers 1 and 6).

Anyone, white, black, brown, yellow, red or whatever, that follows these rules, the chances of you getting shot by cop is next to zero.

That's my experience. YMMV.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. Are you a black person? Or a person of color?

[shadowrider]

18. Why does that matter?

I wasn't relaying anything personal that happened to me, just rules to obey during a traffic stop.

It's all about being polite and following instructions. Look upthread for a video.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. Because you are generalizing from your own experiences to that of others

So I'm wondering if your experiences with cops is actually relevant.

[shadowrider]

22. I'm not generalizing anything from my experience

I've never been stopped by the police in my life but I drive like an old fart and obey traffic laws.

I simply relayed rules to follow to avoid a violent confrontation during a traffic stop.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. The fact that you wrote this applied to all races

Is generalizing

[shadowrider]

37. Oh jumpin Jesus

I'm trying to help people if they should get stopped by the police on how to act, and all I'm getting is an argument.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. You're not helping, all you're doing is pretending to help

By placing blame on victims

[shadowrider]

43. With all due respect

I'm trying to help people get out of a situation should they find themselves in one, and all I get is an argument.

I'm not placing blame on anyone. If, however, people develop an attitude, argue, and refuse to comply with officers instructions, well, that's on them. What happens, happens.

I don't care one way or the other.

[arcane1]

53. What happens, happens. Obey the government or die.

God bless America.

[Igel]

65. It's mostly the same advice I give students.

When they have an issue with either teachers or principals.

I've had students who so didn't not "be police" and so didn't "don't get angry" that they had peers all but pulling them aside to tell them off.

The "I'm innocent and I'll prove it by calling you a 'fucking asshole' or taking a swing at you" becomes not "you're in trouble because you didn't return to your seat quickly" but "you're in trouble because you're egregiously out of compliance and violating a dozen school policies--and while I'm tempted to let it pass, you've now pissed me off so you get every charge against I can find."

And when the kid gets written up he says, "I got in-school suspension because I didn't get to my seat fast enough." And his doltish buddies back him up, "Yeah, that's all you did." It's not blaming the victim. It's saying not to make yourself into a victim.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

112. think about it like this

while those suggestions on what to do when pulled over are good ones and make a lot of sense, since you have never actually been pulled over, and I'm assuming are white, you have no way of knowing if that is how the process will actually work. I have stood 2 feet away from someone getting punched out by cops just for being as smart ass. Sometimes you can't predict what they will do. But your post suggested you can and that 's why you're being challenged.........

[CreekDog]

30. You've never been stopped by the police in your life --You are white!

[shadowrider]

35. My skin color doesn't matter

I obey the law, don't speed, stop at stop signs, don't drive with lights out (headlight or tail light). I give them no reason to stop me. IF they did, however, I'd obey my rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. And you wouldn't get killed because your color protects you

In a way that it didn't protect Tamir rice or many other black kids.

[shadowrider]

41. Tamir Rice was a tragedy and I don't deny it

I don't know all the facts and won't comment further.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. Lol. You shouldn't have made uninformed dumb comments in the first place

[uppityperson]

72. Tamir Rice was murder of a 12 yr old by a cop, not simply "a tragedy". Those are facts.

[radical noodle]

108. And not a traffic stop

They didn't give Tamir Rice time to be polite. They took one look at him and the fake gun and shot him.

[shadowrider]

45. Oh jeez, I give up.

Have your thread and your guilt.

I don't care.

Act as you will during a traffic stop.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. What guilt?

[greytdemocrat]

75. Don't waste your time.

She has made up her mind against you
and nothing you say will change that.

[CreekDog]

42. "My skin color doesn't matter" --YOU ARE WHITE

It's alright, I'm white too. We tend to think it's all equal out there because skin color is typically not an issue that works against us.

[shadowrider]

44. Says Creekdog with no proof whatsoever

other than I've never been stopped by the police.

Good gumshoe work there. It'd stand up in court.

[CreekDog]

46. You're white. Quit acting like it's classified information.

get over yourself. it's relevant to the topic the OP started.

give people a little credit.

[uppityperson]

71. I give them no reason to stop me, yet they have. I have the amazing license plate light that only

goes out when viewed by cops. As soon as anyone else looks at it, it goes back on. It makes for a handy excuse to stop me.

[arcane1]

52. You literally said "That's my experience" in your list of rules.

And it assumes the cop is ALWAYS well-behaved and well-intentioned from the start.

Some people get shot by the police before even getting to step 1 in your list.

Which of those rules did Tamir Rice break?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. ...

[CreekDog]

29. You called them "rules"? What public body adopted these and where can we see them codified?

[shadowrider]

33. It's up to you whether or not you follow them on a traffic stop.

Argue with the police if you want, develop an attitude if you want. Personally, I don't care either way whether you go to jail or not. None of my concern.

But if you want to significantly reduce your chances of something bad happening, they should be followed.

These rules were taught to me when I took my conceal carry class many lifetimes ago.

[CreekDog]

49. You keep using that word "rules" --they aren't RULES.

if they were rules, people have to follow them.

they would be codified.

you lose. bad post. you're just blah blah blah blah blah white person says this is how to have a good interaction with the police.

and then the people who aren't white thank you profusely for explaining this to them because because how on earth could they think of the "rules" that you wrote without your help?



i also know you're white because you think that what you have to say is valuable here because you thought of it.

[arcane1]

54. It's victim-blaming at its worst, and assumes the government is ALWAYS right and polite.

And ignores the countless times when a white person breaks every one of those rules and manages to avoid getting killed.

[scscholar]

102. "my conceal carry class "

So you think having a gun is normal? No, normal people don't do that.

[CreekDog]

31. he's not a person of color nor black

he just said in another post that he's never been stopped by the police.

you know?

[XemaSab]

80. Why do you feel entitled to speak for black people?

And further entitled to chew out white people for not understanding the authentic black experience?

You're a rich Indian-American woman living in New York City. Please tell us how hard you have it.

[bravenak]

82. Lol

I have personally watched 'rich indians' get called nigger right along with me and several other black people. They did not get a racism pass because they were indian...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. I'm not rich. I was born upper middle class.

I speak as an ally of black people, as a social scientist and a POC.

I'm not sure what your issue is with me, but this line of attack is kinda dumb af.

[XemaSab]

96. Maybe black people can speak for themselves

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. They do. Several have spoken on this thread.

All minorities need allies. It's not something I expect you to understand.

Don't you think if black people objected to my thread they would have said that? There are plenty of strong black voices on du. Yet none of them have.

Doesn't that seem odd to you? That you are objecting to me speaking as an ally of black people, but the black voices on du are not objecting?

[XemaSab]

98. Maybe they just don't want to deal

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. lol, your objection to this thread is dumb and ill informed

If you want to be a black ally, you should try to be better informed about issues affecting black people.

Although you are not trying to be an ally are you?

[XemaSab]

106. How exactly am I not informed?

Please give details.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

107. Your objection that I cannot speak as an ally to black people

Because I am not black, is ill informed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Their issue with you is ...

You have taken the time, and put forth the effort, to hear what Black folks have been saying ... and recognize how what we've been saying, intersects with your experience. So you realize you voice can speak for us .. and we have no problem with that which you say.

His/her issue is, she/he is angry that she/he hasn't gain such acceptance.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. I think their issue is that they don't like what I have to say

So an easy way to discredit me is to point out that I am not black.

Thank you for your kind words.

[uppityperson]

21. I am of mixed heritage, look very white. That was my experience until it wasn't. I was polite, he

was scary, over the top, outraged and looking for an excuse to hurt me. I didn't get shot, or tased, though I was afraid I would, for 20 minutes he screamed at me. People watching from the art gallery I stopped outside of were aghast. Small town, liberal area. I had a brake light out. He said I pulled out too close to someone at a corner and what set him off was when I asked which corner that was because I didn't recognize the street name. "You live here, you HAVE to know the names of the streets".

It was eye opening, brought my middle class white female privilege to a screaming noticeability. My father has had extra screening at TSA check points for the last 15 yrs due to his looks. I cruised through, looking more like my Euro-mom.

Yes, it was only 1 cop but it was enough to scare the crap out of me and bring home what people not in my category deal with every single fucking day.

Give them no excuse, follow those guidelines, but it may not matter if you get the wrong cop.

"Anyone, white, black, brown, yellow, red or whatever, that follows these rules, the chances of you getting shot by cop is next to zero."

Wrong.

[shadowrider]

26. Except you didn't get shot so I'm right.

There are cops out there that develop attitudes without a doubt but they do that because they know they don't have anything on you, but try to goad you into an attitude so they can act.

I'm simply saying, be polite, follow instructions, DON'T develop an attitude and your chances are next to zero.

[CreekDog]

32. "be polite" --if a police officer tells you to do something, offer to let him do it first

[shadowrider]

39. Sure

Him/Her: Driver license and registration please

Me: No, you have to show me yours first

How would that work out?

[CreekDog]

56. What's the point of trying to reason with you when you defended the Bundy's in Oregon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027514546#post6

[shadowrider]

110. You seem to miss where I didn't defend them

Only stated they didn't hurt anything. I also put this in there:

"They very well might be racists, I don't know. I don't know any of them personally
And how do I know they're racists simply because they're occupying a building in the middle of nowhere."

Someone, (I won't mention the name here. Don't want to be alerted on for a "call-out&quot said they were racists with no proof whatsoever (but that seems to be their stock answer regarding ANYONE who's a gun owner). Me? I require proof before I label anyone for any reason.

I don't take anything online personally. It's very easy to hit the logoff button and forget all about it (which is what I did the night of our conversation).

I'm willing to have a reasoned discussion without insults or name-calling. Are you?

[gwheezie]

105. Well someone tried to produce id

I have no doubt the cop asked for his license and registration, do you? Unless there is a recording that proves otherwise. There were 3 people present 2of them shot and killed a guy, 2 of them heard the cop say license and registration. The dead guy had a permit to carry, told the cop and was told to produce his Id. The girlfriend backs the story.
Why did the cop have his weapon out to start with?
So it is possible the cop gave several commands that were contradictory so following any of them would have resulted in the cop shooting.
Granted citizens should have some sense when dealing with anyone who has a gun pointed at them but the police really have to give clear commands not put you hands on the steering wheel, don't move, license and Id in any particular order in rapid succession oh no, it is up to the police to give the appropriate commands. Is it possible the cop asked for id and while shooting screamed put your hands on the steering wheel?
Here is what the rule is, the police have to give clear commands that give you the best chance of living.
I am not anti cop. They have a hard job and we need them but they can be wrong.

[shadowrider]

111. From what I understand, he did indeed have a conceal carry permit

He was also stopped because he fit the BOLO of an armed robber from a few nights previously. According to the cop, he was told to NOT MOVE, and according to the cop, the subject continued to move disobeying the officer. There is also speculation he had a gun on his lap (which seems to be the case according to the video, but, it's kinda blurry so I don't know).

I wasn't there, I don't know.

One thing I've learned in my years though, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

"Granted citizens should have some sense when dealing with anyone who has a gun pointed at them but the police really have to give clear commands not put you hands on the steering wheel, don't move, license and Id in any particular order in rapid succession oh no, it is up to the police to give the appropriate commands. Is it possible the cop asked for id and while shooting screamed put your hands on the steering wheel? "

I absolutely agree with this. I've never been stopped but I've watched "COPS". I've heard one officer yelling to put the hands out the window, and another screaming to keep the hands on the wheel.

Yes, CLEAR and PRECISE direction is required. Agreed.

[AgadorSparticus]

81. I agree. But the reality is that it is not as simple when you are a POC.

Please see my post upthread about getting pulled over. This happened just last month. Yes, we were speeding...
like everyone else. No, we did not rry to get out of tge ticket. And yes, my ex was very polite. To the point that he apologized THREE times in order to talk this jackass down from an extremely confrontational level. We knew what had to be done and it was done. The situation was averted.

BUT when you hold a badge AND a gun, you have a responsibility as well to conduct yourself in a respectable and professional manner. EVEN MORESO than the gemerald public. The problem is that there are some who have no business being a police officer. They are not qualified emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. We need to weed those out.

[kwassa]

88. but who knows these rules of etiquette? And why should they need to?

Is this part of driver's training curriculum throughout the US?

These rules should never be necessary.The police have no right, now, or ever, to shoot someone that doesn't follow this script.

[philosslayer]

113. Very sweet. And naive.

You really have no idea, do you? People of color routinely follow the rules you so eloquently laid out, and are still routinely executed by law enforcement.

[malthaussen]

24. I tend to agree.

There are people who will bend over backwards to find "reasons" why the police were "incited" to kill. But how does that explain the slaying of someone who does everything strictly by the book? And it also rather evades the question of why, even if you insulted the officer's mother and accused him of unnatural sexual acts with her, it somehow exonerates him for killing you.

If simple courtesy and reasonable order are not enough to assure a citizen that he will not be killed by the police, then the fault lies with the police, and not with the citizen who failed to pull his forelock.

My brother was once stopped by the police for carrying a water pistol and ordered to "put down the weapon." He first protested that the "weapon" was a toy, then complied when the officers reiterated their order. Had my brother not been white (actually, he's a metis Penobscot, but close enough), he would very possibly have been shot without warning. What price your "yes sir" and "no sir" then?

-- Mal

[Igel]

67. It says that the world isn't perfect.

Look, I've driven for 40 years now. I've been in two accidents. The first, I was going down a driveway and some dickhead came whipping around a blind corner into the driveway. She didn't have right of way, and screamed how it was my fault and what her insurance rates would do. The insurance companies said it was her fault.

The second accident was in the last couple of months. I was stationary at a stop light when the pick-up in front of me backed up with no warning and slammed into the hood of my car. His foot-long trailer hitch did a number on the radiator.

You're told that if you follow traffic safety rules you won't get in accidents. Oh, gee. I followed the rules and got into accidents.

What does that say about the rules? Maybe the proper answer is that I should ignore the rules--tailgate, don't signal, speed, ignore hazardous conditions, cut people off. Or perhaps the rules are just there to reduce risk.

I you are polite, compliant, and courteous, your risk is far less. There are instances where a policeman is off-the-wall crazy. I've seen them brusque and impolite, but never crazy. If I'd taken offense when none was given, it would have been worse.

Most of the videos I've seen that record an incident from start to finish show a pissed off civilian arguing with a cop, who gets pissed off in return. Most just show the cop already pissed off, and we assume that's how he started. But all those who are let off with a warning don't piss off the officer. Make the cop angry, and, well, it pays to remember that he's a human like you.

Had your brother immediately complied with the "put down the weapon" instead of having to have it repeated, any risk would have been reduced earlier. Eliminated? Hard to know, to be honest, because we have little to no evidence and a heck of a lot of assumption and hear-say. Show compliance early, you probably can get by with reluctance later. Show non-compliance early, and you've already done a no-no.

[malthaussen]

76. The situations are not strictly comparable.

An execution is an act of will, an accident usually the result of bad judgement, miscalculation, or incapacity by at least one party.

If you want to contend that it is wisdom not to deliberately piss off the police, one could hardly argue with you. If, however, you want to contend that that wisdom sufficiently addresses the question of police using excessive and unnecessary force, up to and including lethal force, then I think you are in error. And I submit that it is not particularly insightful to advise people to tread carefully around the police -- I'd go further, and suggest that it is particularly distressing that one should have to tread carefully around the police, but as you say, we live in a less than perfect world. Much less. -- that in fact a good few of recent shooting victims have been well aware of the necessity of treading carefully around the police, and have made good faith efforts to do do. They aren't cretins, after all.

When less than three seconds expires between "put down the weapon" and the money shot, all the compliance in the world is not going to keep one from becoming a corpse. And who is held accountable for this? That is the question that goes unaddressed in the majority of these cases, when no spurious blame can be attached to the victim of police over-zealousness. And the question of accountability, I suggest, is far more important than whether this or that victim complied with the officer's instructions in a timely manner. Failure to comply is, after all, no worse than disorderly conduct, which should hardly be a capital offense. Goodness, voluntary manslaughter isn't even a capital offense, although when it is committed by officers it is apparently no offense at all. But there, when we speak of the justice system we are once again in an imperfect world.

By the way, when you were in those accidents, did you apply to insurance companies and/or the courts for redress? Or did you just grin and bear it and write it off to an imperfect world?

-- Mal

[mythology]

78. No rule is perfect or foolproof

I can look right and left before crossing the street, but if somebody drops a piano out the window it won't save me.

It's very unnuanced thinking to assume that because some cop might decide to randomly shoot a black guy it is the same as a cop having grown up in our society having a sub-conscious bias that might lead them to mistakenly think a wallet is a gun and thus there is nothing anybody can do other than just hope they don't get shot by a cop.

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/gunbias.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/08/michael-brown-study-racial-bias-weapon

Yes we should obviously work as a society to do away with that bias. But that won't happen tomorrow, it wouldn't happen if you replaced every current cop with somebody who can watch a video in slow motion, knowing the outcome and swear left right and sideways that it was obviously a wallet. Multiple studies have shown this bias. That is the reality of the world we live in. Accounting for that bias may not save your life, not accounting for it may not cost you your life. But sort of like wearing a seat belt, can increase your odds if you get hit by a drunk driver through no fault of your own, making sure you spell it out slowly for the cop what you're doing can help increase the odds they won't think you're doing something you aren't.

It's also silly to pretend that only black men get shot by cops. Yes black men are highly disproportionately the victim, but only about a 1 out of 3 people killed by cops are black. Yes that's clearly a higher proportion than their percentage of the population would suggest, but it still means that 2 out of 3 people killed by cops aren't black.

If we follow your suggestion, then I shouldn't wear a bike helmet, I shouldn't wear a seat belt, I shouldn't do all sorts of things because they aren't 100% perfect.

[malthaussen]

84. Which suggestion was that?

I made no suggestion in the post to which you are replying. I think you may be making an inference, and perhaps that inference leads to some misunderstanding.

I do not contend that one should not be circumspect in one's conduct with the police because such circumspection is not a guarantee of survival. I do contend that advising circumspection fails to address the larger issue, and is in fact frivolous because most people already know not to antagonize the police. Why this reluctance to admit that the police have a responsibility to be circumspect with the public?

As to statistics, I make no suggestion that "only black men get shot by the cops," and I don't see how you draw the inference that I do. As to the specific incident I do cite, I can immediately bring to mind two cases where black individuals were killed for holding a toy pistol while a white one was not. But that is a small sample pool, and irrelevant. It is also irrelevant to show statistics that demonstrate that more non-blacks are killed by police than blacks. The risk of being shot is, by your own admission, much higher for blacks than non-blacks, and that itself rather ignores the question of whether the police have any business shooting the individual in question to begin with. I'm not sure, exactly, what point you're trying to prove with the data, but it would seem not to support any contention that blacks are not more at risk of being shot by police than non-blacks.

-- Mal

[loyalsister]

27. Also

There should be more collective outrage that parents feel obligated to give such advice, let alone for white people to believe better behaved blacks is a solution. No one should ever have to be told that being afraid of cops is essential to their safety.

[oberliner]

34. This demonization of the police needs to stop

And it needs to stop now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. Soon as the shooting of unarmed black people stop

And when the good cops start condemning the bad ones, and when the bad cops get jail time.

Then I'll stop.

[oberliner]

68. Understood

Without question, there is a huge problem with racism among policing that needs to be addressed. I just wish there was a way to do so without painting all police officers with a broad brush.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

94. There are good officers but as long as they provide cover

For the assholes, they act like the mafia. That is unacceptable for public employees.

[arcane1]

55. If they don't want to be demonized, they shouldn't act like demons.

It's up to them.

[oberliner]

69. Most don't

That's my point. Let's not call them all "demons" because some are.

[arcane1]

70. I'm not. Only the ones who act like demons, and those who sand by and let them n/t

[Mike Nelson]

51. You are correct...

...although being rude does not help. Being calm and polite could save your life.

[zentrum]

57. I think the phrase "be extra careful"

….is code for "be extra deferential" to all authority. And it's really disturbing that not enough White people are crying foul about that whole assumption on every level.

The fact is that when the police ask for ID just because they can, you have the Constitutional Right to refuse to volunteer your name, ID or license—unless there is "reasonable suspicion" that you were doing something illegal.

Police are not allowed to ask you "for your papers" unless they gave a good basis for doing so.

The terrible truth is that a White person has great latitude in exercising their Constitutional Rights and being protected by them. A Back person who dares the same immediately risks their life.

I see the entire idea of anyone being extra compliant and humble around police authority to be a sign that we're becoming supine about a too strong state—a National Security State.

But I, as a White person, for the most part can expect to live to have the luxury of challenging the violation of these rights in court. A Black person may not survive.

Meantime, though it may be wise and even essential to be "extra careful" as a Black person around State bullies——White people need to realize that to say be "extra careful", is at base, a recommendation to be ready to accept lesser rights of American citizenship.

[awoke_in_2003]

66. The SC rulled years ago

That cops can ask you to produce identification for no reason whatsoever.

[JustinL]

73. in what case?

In Brown v Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), the Court unaminously ruled to the contrary. From the syllabus:

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.

From pp. 51-53:

The flaw in the State's case is that none of the circumstances preceding the officers' detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct. Officer Venegas testified at appellant's trial that the situation in the alley "looked suspicious," but he was unable to point to any facts supporting that conclusion. There is no indication in the record that it was unusual for people to be in the alley. The fact that appellant was in a neighborhood frequented by drug users, standing alone, is not a basis for concluding that appellant himself was engaged in criminal conduct. In short, the appellant's activity was no different from the activity of other pedestrians in that neighborhood. When pressed, Officer Venegas acknowledged that the only reason he stopped appellant was to ascertain his identity. The record suggests an understandable desire to assert a police presence; however, that purpose does not negate Fourth Amendment guarantees.

In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits. See Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 440 U. S. 661.

The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is

Reversed.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. I got this from a quick search

I don't know if it has since been overturned. I don't know the veracity of the website, but this is what I remember.

https://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2004/06/22/supreme-court-p/

[JustinL]

86. that ruling was pretty bad, but it doesn't quite say that police can demand ID for no reason

Essentially, the Court ruled that you can be punished for refusing to give your name to an officer when the officer has stopped you based on "reasonable suspicion" that you "may be involved in criminal activity." The Nevada law in question only required the suspect to give their name; they weren't required to provide any documentation.

In the worst part of the opinion the Court ruled that, even though suspicion of criminal activity was the basis of the stop, you can't claim the privilege against self-incrimination when the officer demands your name.

The good news is that the decision was only 5-4 and could be overturned if Hillary is able to appoint at least one pro-4th and 5th Amendment liberal to the Court.

Here's a link to the case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/177.html

[awoke_in_2003]

87. Thanks for the explanation. nt

[TeddyR]

58. Cops shoot all sorts of people

Many of whom are dangerous criminals who were shot for being dangerous criminals, and their race was irrelevant. In a few instances cops have shot unarmed people, white and black. Cops also have probably tens of thousands of interactions with civilians each day in which nobody is shot.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. Wtf is your point?

[TeddyR]

85. I guess that

Cops usually shoot people for a valid reason. The Washington Post had a story last year that the vast majority of police shootings involved a criminal who was armed or threatening harm. There are of course racist or corrupt cops but the vast majority aren't.

[uppityperson]

64. self deleted as you're not worth it.

[etherealtruth]

77. I wrote a long reply and decided not to post it ....

Every time I had the post open it seemed to hurt my dog's ears

[Solly Mack]

63. K&R

[Texasgal]

89. Your posts seems to only

focus on police brutality with black people. They are not the only minority that gets abused by the police.

More Mexican ethnic get killed here than any other minority in many states including mine. Wonder what NY stats are?

The focus should be the police and how they handle themselves, we need to hold the departments accountable.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. I agree that they are not the only minority getting unfairly targeted

[bravenak]

90. Please do not take any posts by people telling you you should not say what you are saying seriously

I remember specifically being told that I couldn't speak for ALL black people on racism because I was a 'wealthy Ivy League establishment black'. It was weird since I'm broke and go to state uni and they were actual white ivy league folks, so I take that kinda stuff with a grain of salt.

You know you must be right when folks start acting out of pocket and get to playing pretend.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

91. Thanks hon.

[snot]

99. Thank you!

PoC's shouldn't have to be more careful than whites.

[JEB]

101. Cut the cop's budget. Big time.