Couple terrified by mistaken Dallas police encounter

[MrScorpio]

by DEBBIE DENMON
WFAA
Posted on June 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Updated today at 10:25 PM
NEWS 8 EXCLUSIVE

DALLAS — With lights flashing and guns drawn, Dallas police pulled over what they thought was a stolen car Sunday morning on Interstate 30 near Buckner Boulevard.
Inside that car was a pregnant woman and her boyfriend.
The problem? The car was not stolen.

It's a mistake that began with a simple typographical error.
"I was scared they was gonna open fire," said JaDamion Cole as he explained how he got out of his vehicle with his hands up, walking backwards toward officers who thought he was driving a stolen vehicle.
"I was so scared. One false move..." he said, finishing the sentence by shaking his head.

Cole's girlfriend sat in the passenger seat with her hands on her stomach.
"They said, 'Passenger, put your hands out!' I said, 'Officer, she's pregnant! She's pregnant!' They didn't listen to me at all," Cole said.
Demeka Luster was praying as officers approached. "I said, 'Lord, please don't let them start shooting.'"

Luster, eight months pregnant, got on her knees just like her boyfriend. Both were handcuffed, not understanding why handguns and shotguns were drawn.
"I knew we didn't do anything wrong," Luster said. "We don't get in trouble."
But trouble found them when the couple was driving on Interstate 30 near Buckner Boulevard early Sunday morning.

"It was an honest mistake; it really was," said Dallas police Sgt. Warren Mitchell.
Police checking the license plate number on a computer terminal were one letter off, typing an "N" instead of an "M."
"When they discovered they ran the wrong license plate, they immediately released them," Mitchell said.
That wasn't the only mistake, however. Luster and Cole were driving a 2005 Chrysler; the stolen car was a 1995 Chevrolet.

"I thought one of us was going to lose our life, that was my biggest fear," Luster said. "That's why I'm so hurt and terrified, because we are supposed to be protected by the police."

Dallas police say the officers were following department policy, but there is an internal affairs investigation under way.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Couple-terrified-by-Dallas-police-encounter-97359069.html

[Rex]

1. Well it could have been worse, they could have tasered the woman and baby

and beatdown the guy. Good thing they caught the mistake in time.

[notesdev]

2. What kind of country have we become

where innocent civilians have good reason to fear for their lives in an encounter with the police?

[misanthrope]

151. African-Americans in the Jim Crow South lived with that fear every day...

...This is nothing new in America.

[KurtNYC]

158. and a 1995 Chevy is worth more than human lives?

[petronius]

3. That's pretty screwed up. I hope that "internal affairs investigation" includes

reevaluating policy rather than just checking to see if the officers followed the existing policy...

[Heidi]

4. Recommended.

:kick:

[napi21]

5. I understand the typo. Pretty common one. But I question

why in the world they had guns drawn for a stolen car? THAT doesn't make any sense to me.

[Confusious]

6. It's not the winners of the nicest person contest who steal cars.

This is the United States where any psychotic can get a weapon.

Being defensive is a reflection of society.

Just found example A:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8653336&mesg_id=8653336

[MicaelS]

31. Oh so you're so concerned about the availability of guns

You only want the racist, sexist, fascist homophobic police and military to have them right? :sarcasm:

[jp11]

36. They are police officers and must not take any risk when dealing with

perps, criminals or the general public. Simply put their lives are more important than yours, mine or anyone else's.

[Confusious]

51. Of course

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/tampa-police-officers-shot-062910

[Fastcars]

228. Are You Serious?

There lives are more important than mine? Or anyone that posts here?

Wouldn't we need to judge that on a case by case basis? I don't doubt a bit that there are LEOs that are more important than I, but I am equally sure there are many that I am a better person than.

Edit to add; On a second reading I do think you are not serious about the relative value of LEOs and the rest of us.

[jp11]

235. No, as the poster before you posts a story about two officers killed

after the second officer responded to the first officer's call for backup when he discovered one of the people in the vehicle had a warrant out, per their policy backup is required. Somehow once the warrant was discovered, backup was called for and subsequently arrived, both officers were shot close range unable to return fire, IIRC one was shot in the head. This response by the other poster illustrates how police can be excused from being civil and permitted to treat everyone like they are dangerous criminals ready to kill them because the possibility exists that they COULD be. This is our world of fear it and take no chances, and by even saying that of course I must mean that police should always put their lives in danger and take no precautions, nor strike any balance between their safety and not terrorizing the public at large in any way shape or form.

Following the logic above you might conclude that since some criminals have in the past impersonated police officers that the public should be suspect of police whatever that means in various encounters with them, which of course can lead to dangerous situations where people question police or don't obey their commands and end up shot, tasered or beaten for not complying. One might also think that since some police are dirty and ready to plant evidence or simply lie or even kill in extreme situations for whatever reason the public shouldn't trust them implicitly or expect them to do the right thing either.

As I said you *might* think that is the way we should look at police since it can be a mentality in the police that every encounter, every interaction with people could result with them getting killed. Which gets back to what my post and point was, that mentality of the public being dangerous to police, that they should protect themselves and value their lives and other officers over the general public instead of looking at each situation critically or striking some balance between their safety and the dignity and respect that should be showed to citizens who have done nothing threatening or wrong.

[HughBeaumont]

231. No . . . . they're not. That's SUCH an absolutely STUPID statement. Jesus Christ.

[proteus_lives]

50. Because people who steal cars often aren't honors students on their way to the Peace Corps.

[Raineyb]

58. Where does it say that this couple were car thieves?

Oh right it didn't.

[proteus_lives]

65. The LEOs were approaching the car with the possibility of a felon driving it.

The question about about approaching a possibly-stolen, occupied vehicle.

Not about the couple from the OP.

[Raineyb]

89. And the car was stopped why? n/t

[proteus_lives]

100. Because they made a mistake with the identification.

[EOTE]

164. Not only that, but because they ran the tags. And just why did they run the tags? NT

[Confusious]

186. Commonwealth V. Starr

[EOTE]

189. I didn't say "What gives them the legal right to run the tags?"

So you must not have understood my question. Please read before responding.

[Confusious]

191. Because they run the tags of every nice car they see

Or they run the tags of every car with a black person in it.

I know which one you'll pick.

[EOTE]

192. So you're incapable of providing an answer?

I don't believe either scenario you suggest. But your non-answer speaks quite a bit. But let me guess, your answer to this question wouldn't matter, would it?

[Confusious]

203. I provided a conjecture

You just don't want to see it that way. I don't work for the police department of Dallas, and unless you do, all you have is conjecture too.

[EOTE]

206. Another fine non-answer there. NT

[Confusious]

222. No, just you have a set mental filter, and nothing else gets through. nt

[Fastcars]

232. Chances are a 15 year old Chrysler....

Isn't a very nice car. Probably a $1500 beater.

[EOTE]

236. The 15 year old Chevy might have been a beater.

The 5 year old Chrysler probably wasn't. Especially considering it's riding on a Mercedes Benz platform.

[proteus_lives]

208. You would have to ask them.

[Raineyb]

165. Why did they run the tags?

[Confusious]

187. Commonwealth V. Starr

[Raineyb]

193. That doesn't answer my question. Why did they run the plates on this car? n/t

[EOTE]

195. He apparently thinks that cops run the tags of EVERY car they see.

At least, that seems to be what he believes. I certainly wouldn't expect an honest answer to this question.

[Confusious]

205. State v. Richter

the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a traffic stop that was the result of an officer in Salem, New Hampshire randomly running a license plate. The facts indicate that the officer did not observe any motor vehicle violation and merely ran the plate when the vehicle drove past. The computer check did not reveal a problem with the vehicle’s registration, but instead indicated that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license. Based on this information, the officer stopped the car and subsequently arrested the driver who, as it turned out, was the registered owner of the vehicle. The driver, challenged his arrest on the grounds that the officer had no way of knowing, simply based on the computer check, that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time.

[EOTE]

207. Nice posting of completely irrelevant information there.

You wouldn't perhaps be able to post anything pertinent to the conversation, would you?

[Confusious]

218. Everything is irrelevent when your mind is closed. nt

[EOTE]

221. Your faux cryptic replies aren't witty. They just show how little you have to contribute. NT.

[Confusious]

226. You don't want contributions. If you did, you wouldn't dismiss what I have to say. nt

[EOTE]

229. For me to dismiss your contributions, you'd actually have to contribute something.

And not just say "You're stupid for believing this!" while providing no basis for that. You can't defend your words, so you just throw around stupid poems. Adults are capable of contributions. You are not.

[conscious evolution]

244. They do run the plates of every car

in many states.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=licence+plate+reader&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[proteus_lives]

210. You would have to ask them.

[Maine-ah]

245. I imagine that they encounter many stolen cars

where the driver is armed.

[Dank Nugs]

7. Police are not legally required to protect you -- SCOTUS ruling.`

You're better off not depending on the police and carrying a gun so that you can protect yourself. Better to be self-reliant than depend on big government to do it for you.

[wolfgangmo]

32. Which ruling?

Can you post a link? It would be helpful.

[Dank Nugs]

57. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzalez

http://supreme.justia.com/us/545/04-278/case.html

This predates the Roberts court and I don't have a current findlaw subscription. I'm sure a copy of the ruling is available somewhere on the internet in PDF form.

[MajorChode]

114. That's not exactly what the ruling said

The ruling said there was nothing in Colorado law which granted the entitlement to police protection, and neither is there anything in the Constitution which grants an entitlement to police protection. If the people want an entitlement to police protection, they should petition the legislature and not the judicial. This might be a sad case, but it's not something that can be fixed in the court system. It needs to be fixed at the legislative level.

[DFW]

8. Texas is a place where any whacko can get a gun

And the DPD knows it. The DPD has its share of competent people and incompetent, trigger-happy rednecks,
and all of them know that stolen cars are often driven by armed bad guys.

The couple can thank Rick Perry for their ordeal, and their lucky stars that it occurred on a Sunday morning
with little traffic and not on a Friday or Saturday night when the cops' nerves might have been quite a bit edgier.

[Selatius]

9. They were driving a 2005 Chrysler. The stolen car was a 1995 Chevy. How the fuck did this happen?

Was skin color a factor or something?

[Confusious]

14. Did you read the article?

The police where told to be on the lookout for a car, which was the wrong type, wrong year and wrong license plate.

I could imagine some wild theories about how race could be involved, but they are all stupid.

Not everything is about race. Sometimes people make mistakes. Like hitting the N key instead of the M key. ( Which are right next to each other on the keyboard, FYI )

[CBGLuthier]

17. Where do you see that?

I see that they RAN the wrong plate. Meaning they saw black people driving a nice car and butterfingers the cop typed their plate number wrong.

Why did they run the plates to begin with? DWB. Anyone who denies the phenomenon of DWB is stupid. period.

[Confusious]

38. Well they ran the wrong plate

Are you a cop? do you know why they ran it in the first place?

No theories please, facts.

[EOTE]

54. You claim to know.

You say that to even suggest that race was involved in this incident is stupid. Just what do you know, oh wise one, that leads you to that conclusion? Or were you simply tossing out a theory and not waiting for the facts?

[Dogtown]

19. Are you an Oath Keeper?

Seems you always want to excuse the police when they cross civilized boundaries.

We've had several OKs here; they seldom last.

[Confusious]

37. So I don't agree with you, I'm a Republican

You want to help stop war,
Well we reject you application,
You crack to many jokes and you eat meat.
What better way to turn people off,
Is to twist ideas for change,
Into one more church that forgets,
We're all human beings.

[Dogtown]

43. I asked a question

which you haven't answered.

[Confusious]

46. I gave an answer

It's your problem if you can't understand it.

Besides, if I say Yes, I'd be lying.
If I say no, you won't believe me.

Is there really a point?

[EOTE]

47. That wasn't an answer.

It was a very poorly spelled poem. It IS your problem if you can't compose an answer that others find intelligible.

[Confusious]

48. It's not a poem, it's a song

From a man who was fighting for liberal causes when you where probably in diapers.

And it's completely true and says everything, if you take them time to think about it.

[EOTE]

53. Regardless of what it was, it was cryptic and poorly spelled.

That people don't understand what you wrote shouldn't surprise you.

[Confusious]

99. So missing one R ( a typing mistake ) and you can't understand it.

I see the problem now.

[EOTE]

163. That wasn't your only mistake, but that's beside the point.

When asked a simple question, you might want to try providing a simple answer. When you reply with nothing but poorly spelled obfuscation, you shouldn't be surprised when people can't understand your answer. That's the problem.

[Confusious]

177. Why should I provide a direct answer to a question

When the answer doesn't matter? When asked a question like that, the person doesn't care what the answer is.

So I gave an answer I thought was appropriate.

It's a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well have you?

[EOTE]

179. No, it's actually nothing like that. I'd suggest learning some logic.

You see, when you ask a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?", the question in and of itself suggests that the person being asked at one point WAS beating his wife. When asked a question like "Are you an Oathkeeper?", the question itself suggests nothing and simply asks for a simple yes or no answer. If you simply said "No", whether you expect your answer to be believed or not, at least you provided an answer which says nothing negatively about yourself. Really man, I'd expect someone with the SN 'Confusious' to know something like that.

[Confusious]

182. The point is, the answer doesn't matter

For either of them. It's just to disparage the other person.

I'd expect someone with the SN 'Confusious' to know something like that.

You didn't read it that closely. I would suggest you give it another go.

[EOTE]

197. Apparently, none of your answers matter.

The fact that you're not willing to provide answers to the bulk of questions asked of you tells me that you're walking on very shaky ground indeed. The bulk of the answers you have provided aren't even to the question asked.

[Confusious]

199. Because no one asked any questions that mattered.

Just statements about my inability to spell, my inability to answer questions, my inability at logic, my inability.... etc.

[EOTE]

209. No questions matter to you. So why even involve yourself with something you know so little of?

Perhaps it would be far more convenient for you if you were to respond when you had something to contribute. You'd save an awful lot of time that way. In fact, your entire participation in this thread could have been avoided.

[Confusious]

220. You have a gift for exaggeration, and I could say the same. nt

[EOTE]

223. Sure means a lot from someone who believes it would be stupid to believe in racism.

I assume you still believe it would be stupid to believe that racism is involved? Or are you not willing to admit how incredibly stupid that statement was?

[Confusious]

225. Again, that gift of exaggeration. nt

[EOTE]

233. "I could imagine some wild theories about how race could be involved, but they are all stupid."

Who was the ignoramus who said that piece of tripe? I'm sure I'll figure it out if I think long enough.

[Dogtown]

56. Oh, there's most definitely a point.

Obfuscation does not comprise an answer, though your nick provides an interesting perspective on your reliance on it.

Obfuscation deflects a direct answer into useless circular discussion. It also allows you to manipulate the discourse without identifying yourself. That's useful, if your intent is to change tack when the wind shifts.

My query was rhetorical, of course, but a direct answer would have defeated it's purpose. Your continuance of the dance merely drives my point home.

To clarify and simplify, I did not accuse you of being a Republican or an Oath-Keeper. As you sophomorically point out, the question could have been answered dishonestly. The point is not in the specific answer you provide, then. Perhaps I sought the measure of you by determining if you could provide a direct response.

[Confusious]

107. I didn't want to change tack, I wanted to drop sail.

Perhaps I sought the measure of you by determining if you could provide a direct response.

There was no point to your question so the answer didn't matter and that is why I answered the way I did.

It also allows you to manipulate the discourse without identifying yourself.

Welcome to the internet. Nobody identifies themselves, and if you think you know someone, think again.

[Dogtown]

157. More gibberish.

Your responses are less straight than a dog's leg.


BTW, "identifying yourself" in this context doesn't mean disclosing your SSN. Quit being coy.

[Confusious]

159. Talk about gibberish

You set out goalposts, yet you never give a description of what they are. So it's up to me to define them, and then you say, "NOPE not that"

Complete waste o time from the start.

[Dogtown]

160. And yet you continue.

How droll.

[Confusious]

174. And so do you.

Double back at ya.

[Dogtown]

215. Oh, I've been done with you for awhile.

It's not like you've required any real effort.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. Did YOU read the article? There's nothing about a BOLO.

Entering the wrong letter into the terminal: minor error.
Not checking it again when it came back belonging to an entirely different car? Stupid.
Not apologizing for holding them at gunpoint and tasking a very pregnant woman to get down on her knees just because the cops erred? Really stupid and rude, and not to consider that DWB was a factor is hopelessly naive.

[Confusious]

40. Not apologizing

Fuck ups like that always bring the internal investigation, and they are told to keep their traps shut.

Unfortunately, it's not them, it's the way the law works.

And unless you've spent time in law enforcement, I'll take DWB as a theory, not fact.

As for the rest, I think they're human. As a science geek, I'm sure we don't have any thinking robots yet. At least I hope not.

[JoeyT]

63. Spent time in law enforcement?

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Unless you're black I'll take your opinions on DWB with a grain of salt.

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Departments can and do apologize for incidents.

No evidence in the article that this department intends to do so.

BTW, I have worked in LE on the civilian side and have LEOs in the family. DWB isn't just a theory to me. I've heard some LEOs describe how it influences their assessment of the situation. As I wrote before, not to consider DWB as a factor in such a stop is naive.

[Confusious]

183. Departments do

Cops don't.

[Gormy Cuss]

237. And nothing in the article suggests that this department feels the need to apologize

fr a stupid screw-up by its personnel.

[Fastcars]

234. DWB....

Is definitely a FACT in this case.

I agree the officer is human. A completely incompetent one that didn't bother to take the ten seconds or so to confirm that he had the right plates, or type of car. If I typed in a random plate and it came back with a FELONY attached, I would damn sure double check.

[Missy Vixen]

29. Oh, really?

>Not everything is about race.<

I seem to remember a case a little over a year ago of a Dallas cop who drew on a family on their way to the emergency room. They didn't think they would make it out alive, either.

They were African-American. Luckily for them, one of the parties in the car plays in the NFL, so this case got all kinds of publicity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/27/national/main4898503.shtml?tag=topStory

The moral to this story? Hell, yes, it's about race. Those who don't believe it's so need to rethink.

[Confusious]

41. I will wait and see

I prefer to have facts and to not assume.

When you work with electricity, assuming gets you killed.

[Missy Vixen]

55. The cops were assuming, were they not?

The car wasn't the right make or even year. It was legally owned. The people inside did nothing wrong.

It seems to me that someone who works with a deadly weapon on a daily basis should be even more careful than those who work with electricity.

[Confusious]

185. no

Running plates is not a violation of anything. The Supreme Court has confirmed that police are legally empowered to do this, and that it really doesn't constitute an invasion into one's privacy.

Commonwealth V. Starr

[CreekDog]

69. You got all the facts before going on probable cause didn't you?

Didn't you?

[Confusious]

184. no

Running plates is not a violation of anything. The Supreme Court has confirmed that police are legally empowered to do this, and that it really doesn't constitute an invasion into one's privacy.

Commonwealth V. Starr

[CreekDog]

214. you don't need all the facts to pull a gun on someone

yet you need them all to even accept that racism is occurring in an unjustified traffic stop/gun pulling by the police.

i guess you'll have to pull a gun on me to convince me that you're being consistent.

[Confusious]

217. They thought the car was stolen, but don't let that stop you. nt

[CreekDog]

230. Again, you are setting up two levels of proof, one to believe in racism and the other to pull a gun

and the threshold to believe in racism, you require facts/proof, and pulling a gun, you do not.

but "don't let that stop you".

and i assume that's because you don't want to answer the issue i raised for you and your inconsistency.

[ecstatic]

59. Why were the plates ran in the first place? Hmm...?

Or is that standard procedure too... to just randomly check plates?

[BrklynLiberal]

68. Now THAT is very good question...

[USArmyParatrooper]

145. And until we know we should assume it was for malicious reasons

Because it's highly unusual for police officers to run license plate numbers.

[liberalhistorian]

82. I'm sorry, but I would kinda expect

a police officer to be able to tell the difference between a '95 Chevy and a 2005 Chrysler. If they can't even tell that simple fucking difference, then they've got a real problem.

[unapatriciated]

171. It seems our police have had that type of problem for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2R4QWCEgcU

Many years ago I had a neighbor who was LAPD (Ramparts Div). He told me that all of us were suspects who had yet to be caught.

[Selatius]

125. Yeah, I read the article. But where I grew up (Mississippi) race was always on the table.

My own life experiences did not match up with yours apparently.

[Confusious]

156. No, they didn't

In the family I grew up in, the friends I had, and the people I knew, I never heard anyone say anything disparaging about any other "race" until I was a teenager, and then the only thing I can remember was "Eskimos drink too much." It was a complete stranger.

I had to move down here to here the 'N' word be used, or people talk badly about other "races."

You could call it a sheltered life, but that would be wrong. "Sheltered" would mean I had no idea it was there. I did hear about it.
It was on the news, the riots, the inequity of the justice system, etc, and most importantly, in the history books I loved.

OH, and in a great episode of "Star Trek," "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" which highlighted the stupidity of it all.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

135. You state conjecture as fact and then chastise others for jumping to conclusions.

Talk about stupid.

[skeptical cynic]

10. "...the officers were following department policy..."

Read "circle the wagons."

This is why I can't stomach the program, "Cops." I get tired of watching uniformed officers who can't construct a grammatically correct sentence lecturing throw-away citizens on morality. I keep thinking, "Just shut up and arrest them. They haven't been tried and convicted yet, so why are you punishing them with your mindless lectures?"

[Robert DAH Bruce]

11. There was an "N" involved, all right!

But it was in the minds of the cops: It had nothing to do with a goddam license plate!

[Confusious]

15. I guess you can find racism everywhere

And it all started when they typed a racist 'N' instead of an 'M' and it goes through a racist database and pulls up the wrong make and model of the car. and then the racist dispatch sends it over the wire to the racist cops.

[CBGLuthier]

18. Cops saw black folk driving nice car and ran the wrong plate

Do you think they run the plates of every white guy they see driving.

My wife worked late at a restaurant one night and saw how the cops would constantly run the plates of every nice car driven by a black person.

DWB.

[Confusious]

35. Maybe so.

Boy who cried wolf.

[CreekDog]

70. Tactful use of "Boy"

:wtf:

[Confusious]

108. OMFG!!!

If you look for racism in everything, you're sure to find it. Even if it's not there.

I take it you never heard the story. It's effing russian. Jebus christ.

[Bonobo]

25. Or you could deny it everywhere, nt

[Confusious]

42. Not everywhere, those are your words

It may be, in your world, that things are all about racism in the case of a black person and a white person.

Not in mine.

[CreekDog]

71. Your world denies that racism exists

because nobody here is saying that racism explains everything --that's your straw man.

[Confusious]

116. No, I'm saying that a lot of people like to jump on racism first thing.

And sometimes, more these days, find out it wasn't.

[Raineyb]

166. You deny it EVERY TIME it's brought up.

You ignore it. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some of us can't afford to be as deluded as you are.

[Confusious]

172. There are different types of delusions.

[EOTE]

27. Silly me for thinking that racism exists in law enforcement.

I'm sure you can school me on how the nation's prisons are NOT incredibly disproportionately filled with minorities. I'll be waiting right here.

[Confusious]

34. Probably because more minorities are poor

So they turn to crime. Why are they poor? The same reason we're all getting poorer. Bullshit economics.

There are statistics, like a black person is more likely to get the death penalty then a white.

You want to put that out there, then you have case.

P.s. and probably because you can steal a couple of hundred million and get 5 years, rob a liquor store and get 20.

If it was up to me, the people stealing a couple hundred million would get life in jail, and I think things would even out pretty quick.

[EOTE]

45. That's not it by a long shot.

You mention the death penalty, that's just one of the ways that minorities are shafted by the legal system. But even adjusting for income level, far more minorities as a percentage are put in jails than non-minorities. How you could defend this is unconscionable.

[Confusious]

49. I'm not defending it

I haven't seen the stats, if you have a link I will look at it.

I know they get shafted by the legal system.

Do I not look at the world through a lens that says every time there's a white person and a black person in an altercation, or a black person being stopped by the cops, it's because of racism.

To me, you're getting upset because I don't.

[EOTE]

52. You ARE defending it.

Just what do you think your first post in this thread is? Once again we have completely unconscionable action by law enforcement and the first post you make on the thread defends it.

On edit: I'm referring to posts 14 & 15, though your first post certainly does try to defend their behavior too.

[Confusious]

112. I'm not defending stopping people DWB or racism.

I saying there are other factors to consider as far as this stop goes.

First off: Are the cops white or black? do you know? As a test, is Steven Little a white or black name?

Second: They made a mistake typing in the plate, and came up with the wrong car. Humans make mistakes, cops are human.

Third: Cops die all the time in just basic stops:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/29/florida.police.shot/index.html

As much as I might hope ( Just thought I would bold that for you. HOPE means I know it still there, I just hope, and know, it's going away. ex. George Wallace ) that racism is a thing of the past, you seem to believe that police officers should be protecting themselves with whiffle bats and handing out flowers, 'cause everyone knows that just melts a criminals heart.

[EOTE]

161. As much as you say you aren't, that's exactly what you're doing.

You've made several posts this thread defending their actions, saying that to suggest that racism is involved would be STUPID. You go on and on about how this ISN'T racially motivated and suggested it would be stupid to suggest so. Then you go off about how people need to wait for all the facts. Well, you certainly didn't wait for all the facts. Hypocrisy isn't something to be proud of.

[Confusious]

173. No one has proved its DWB

Just assuming it is.

After reading, I COULD see a point where it COULD be DWB. I'm not going it say it's nothing else, like many here.

If it is, I'll apologize.

If the shoe is on the other foot, will you?

Also, you didn't say anything about my other statements. Having a hard time seeing things in any other light?

[EOTE]

175. No you couldn't. You already said it would be STUPID.

Are you suggesting that you're stupid? That's what you seem to be saying, after all, it would be STUPID to believe that race is involved. In spite of the horrific history of racism in law enforcement, according to you it would be stupid. Frankly, I think it's quite a few steps beyond stupid to assume that racism ISN'T involved. After all, WHY WERE THE FREAKING TAGS RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE? No one has provided a decent answer to that. And when the tags were run and the car didn't match, WHY DIDN'T THEY CHECK THEIR FUCKING WORK? And you seriously expect an apology from me after making one boneheaded assumption after another? I assume you still believe it's STUPID to believe that racism is involved in this matter, right? Do you still believe that or are you finally willing to admit that you're wrong?

[Confusious]

181. I'm saying I made a mistake in reading

I'm human. I could see it being DWB, I have no proof it isn't, but you have no proof it is. I can also see that doesn't count for much.

To you, it's racism to you, no if, and, or buts about it.

The cops could run the plates on every nice car they see. Running plates is not a violation of anything. The Supreme Court has confirmed that police are legally empowered to do this, and that it really doesn't constitute an invasion into one's privacy.

Commonwealth V. Starr

[EOTE]

188. Legally empowered to do something does not mean that it's right.

No shit they have the legal right to run the tags, NOBODY is denying that. The question is, WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION? It's quite clear they fucked up their response royally, a mere apology is not sufficient. I've never said I'm 100% convinced that racism was the motivating factor in this incident, I'm just 99% or so sure. Racism exists and it's just about everywhere. And let's say that 1% chance wins out and the whole deal wasn't racially motivated, the cops involved should still lose their jobs and they should be fined out the ass.

[Confusious]

190. 99% might as well be 100%

They thought it was a stolen car. Car thieves aren't usually nice people.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/05/20/story-memphis-arkansas-officer-shot-ohio-vehicle.html?sid=102
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/29/florida.police.shot/index.html

They made a mistake. They should be reprimanded for it.

[EOTE]

194. You still haven't provided any possible reason for them running the tags in the first place.

They made SEVERAL mistakes. And it's just NOW that you think they should be reprimanded for it? You've defended their actions multiple times on this thread.

[Confusious]

200. Well, you didn't give me much of a chance to say anything else.

And I gave a conjecture on why they ran the plates, but of course, you just glazed over it and the rest of my post.

Like I said, you think it's racism 100%.

[EOTE]

211. Citing a supreme court decision is not conjecture.

You've denied it's racism from the very beginning when EVERY indication suggests that racism is behind this. My belief is far more grounded in reality than yours. You'd frankly have to be blind to believe as you do.

[EOTE]

196. And no, it might as well not be 100%.

Because 100% would suggest there's no possible way it wasn't racially motivated. I think there's a chance it wasn't racially motivated, but a very small one. My reasoning for that? 100+ years of unconscionable activity by law enforcement toward minorities.

[Confusious]

201. An in the past 100 years, nothing, anywhere at all

has improved when it comes to "race" in the United States.

( I put "race" in quotes because stating "race" implies there are different types of humans running around on the earth. We're all the same species, Human.
Don't want you to take it as racism. )

[EOTE]

212. To some extent things have improved.

Black people are a lot less likely to be lynched nowadays. Still, racism is everywhere and almost impossible to avoid if you're black.

And you are once again very wrong regarding race. Racial classifications do not suggest that we're of a different species. Different races do exist, your attempt to simplify this very complicated issue is, once again, very telling. Are our racial classifications imprecise? You bet they are. Hundreds of years of breeding assure to that, it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

[Confusious]

216. With thinking like that nothing will change. nt

[EOTE]

219. I'm pointing out a simple fact.

And the fact that you have nothing to counter it doesn't make it any less true. You've contributed less than nothing to this thread. Please respond back when you have something to contribute other than a non-answer or other form of obfuscation.

[Confusious]

224. Well, you dismiss everything I say, so will probably be never. nt

I I'm sure we will both be happier for it, I more then you.

[EOTE]

227. I dismiss what you say because it's so incredibly naive.

You state that it would be stupid to believe this incident was racially motivated while having absolutely no basis to believe that (when in fact you should have a strong basis to believe otherwise). Then you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to suggest that others not get upset about this until "all the facts are in". You're a hypocrite. You've prejudged this situation in an incredibly ignorant manner and then you blame others who have very real reasons to believe as they do.

And let me teach you a little something you should have learned a long time ago:

Then: Subsequently.
Than: Used after a comparative adjective.
To: An extent, or towards.
Too: Also.

You might be able to make your point a bit better if you learn these.

[Raineyb]

167. Yes you are. n/t

[EOTE]

213. Amazing that he doesn't see it.

He comes into this thread shouting about how anyone that interprets this as racism is stupid, then he has the gall to say that he's not defending their actions when everything he's said so far has been an attempt to let the police off the hook. Some people really like to have their cake and eat it too.

[malaise]

24. +1,000

DWB

[HipChick]

12. DWB...n/t

[redqueen]

13. "Luster and Cole were driving a 2005 Chrysler; the stolen car was a 1995 Chevrolet."

*sigh*

[jberryhill]

16. A stolen 1995 Chevy?

How hard up do you need to be to steal a 1995 Chevy?

[Dogtown]

20. Often reporting cars as stolen

is a tactic used in domestic disputes; a method of involving the police in a civil matter.

[Blue_Tires]

61. GM cars, even older ones, had been prime targets for 20+ years

For starters, up until the late 90s they were notoriously easy to steal (even kids too young to drive could be trained to work around the door, anti-theft and ignition and be gone in under three minutes)

Secondly, even an older car is worth much more parted out, especially if it shares common parts with a wide platform...But then again the theives could have wanted to go joyriding and snatched up the first thing they saw...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Sounds like a standard felony stop these day.

SOP for about all departments. As a comment to the article says, two FL cops were killed during a traffic stop yesterday.

Why their plates were run is a very good question.

[Tailormyst]

44. More and more departments use compueters that scan license plates as you go by a cop

That would have probably been a benefit in this case (avoiding the mis-type), but sucks if you have any flags attached to your registration.

[Tsiyu]

23. Here's the problem cops don't see

They "want the support of the good folks in order to better catch the bad folks," is what they tell us.

But if they treat law-abiding citizens like crap all the time, they aren't going to get much support from them when they get hurt by the non-law-abiding people.

Why should anyone care about cops if they treat their jobs as some free-for-all against the citizenry?

Now, i know all cops don't. But when people see these stories, they trust the cops less and less.

Don't cops understand this?

[wolfgangmo]

39. I used to be an offcer.

In my limited experience most officers fall somewhere between really great and average, but it is those bad ones that make it bad for everyone. I remember one guy, an ex marine who exemplified the term jarhead, said during pre-shift briefing that he hoped someone would start something because he wanted to fight. And of course he found what he was looking for and the rest of us got to clean up the mess. It took us a few years, but we eventually got rid of him.

[CreekDog]

60. Why are the police forcing someone who is 8 months pregnant to do things she can't

or couldn't be expected to do?

i can't get on my knees, if an officer asked me to do the same and i couldn't and he wouldn't listen to me what am i supposed to do?

and will i get roughed up because of it?

this is madness. i no longer believe that calling the police will make things better.

[JoeyT]

64. You'd get tasered.

They don't particularly care what you can or can't do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnI_xM5ujo4

[unapatriciated]

176. I had a neighbor years ago (Det, Ramparts Div LA Ca)

He told me that all of us were suspects who had yet to be caught.
That is when I no longer trusted the police and began to fear them.

[TransitJohn]

26. Prediction: no loses a job or any pay.

They'll institute some sort of double check your typing procedure and call it good.

[Missy Vixen]

28. I'll bet these "mistakes" are only made

when the driver in question is African American.

Did I say that? Hell, yes.

[Brewman_Jax]

30. Looks like DWB

Luster and Cole were driving a 2005 Chrysler; the stolen car was a 1995 Chevrolet. Those look nothing alike. Of course the IA investigation will show nothing wrong. Nothing to see, move along.

[HipChick]

123. +100...

[truebrit71]

33. I'm shocked that they were a black couple...shocked I tell ya!

:sarcasm:

Wrong license plate, wrong make of car, wrong year of car, but the PERFECT colour of skin to get pulled over and harassed..:eyes:

[Blue_Tires]

62. sadly, some things never go out of style

even in 'post-racial' america....

[BrklynLiberal]

67. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Just an honest mistake......

"Luster and Cole were driving a 2005 Chrysler; the stolen car was a 1995 Chevrolet."

[TexasObserver]

72. Police are out of control. They mainly answer to no one but each other.

[Taitertots]

73. Much ado about nothing

Police stopped a car because of a typographical error. They were released totally unharmed within minutes.

[MrScorpio]

74. I don't think that the incompetence of lethal force bearing public servants is...

"Much ado about nothing"...

Unless, of course, if you just decide disregard the basic human dignity of the poor couple in question, that may be a valid conclusion to promote.

[Taitertots]

75. If you expect 100% typographical accuracy than you are in fantasy land

How was there basic human dignity disregarded by being stopped and released moments later unharmed?

[MrScorpio]

76. So when the results initially came up not to fit:

I.e., the wrong make and model of the "stolen vehicle", it was asking a tad too much of the cops to double check their own work, instead of jumping out Rambo-style to force an innocent man and his pregnant girlfriend to lie on the hot asphalt with guns at their heads?

I would hazard to assume that when loaded weapons are pointed at particular person's head, if they're not shot dead through no fault of their own mind you, this kind of public humiliation may have a profound affect on such a person's basic human dignity.

[Taitertots]

77. You have a very active imagination

Where in that article does it say they made her lie on her stomach and held guns to her head?

You will just weave any fantasy you can to bemoan the police for not living up to your impossible accuracy expectations.

[MrScorpio]

79. Did you bother watching the video?

I suggest that you check it out

[Taitertots]

81. The reporter makes no mention of her having to lie on her stomach

They clearly state that she had to kneel and was handcuffed. No one has made the claim that she had to lie on her stomach.

[MrScorpio]

85. And that's your total defense of these errant cops?

"She may have been an innocent pregnant woman, on her knees, handcuffed in the street and with loaded shotguns pointed at her, but at least no one pointed out that she had to lie on her stomach"?

Do you want to stop there, or is there anything else that you think that the cops did right that you want to point out?

[Taitertots]

86. Who said she had to lie on her stomach?

No one. Stop living in a fantasy world.

[MrScorpio]

88. You want your pound of flesh, I don't really give a fuck, you've got it

However, if tell me that if you were in their place, handcuffed ON YOUR KNEES, on the side of the road with loaded weapons pointed at you, through no fault of your own, that your own dignity would still be intact afterwards... I have to question what your own meaning of the word dignity is.

Of course, if the cops are to be excused for their "typos", it won't mean much.

[Taitertots]

95. My dignity would remain intact

If that would bother you than you are an excessively fickle person.

[EOTE]

78. It was NOT just a typographical error.

First of all, why were the plates run in the first place? Secondly, when it was determined that the stolen car was a '95 Chevy rather than a 2005 Chrysler, why were they still stopped? I'm always shocked at the shit I see defended here.

[MrScorpio]

80. I guess to some, cops can do NO wrong

"Nothing to see here, move along."

[Taitertots]

83. Yes, it was a typographical error

If your plates get run and it comes back to a different car than you are going to get pulled over. If a typographical error makes it appear as if they are plates from a stolen car and they don't match the vehicle then you are going to get pulled over for sure.

Then when the error was discovered they were released unharmed.

[Raineyb]

92. On what basis did they run the plates? What do they think black people are only

allowed to drive junkers?

No excuse for this bullshit. Another case of DWB.

[Taitertots]

97. You should ask African American police Sgt. Warren Mitchell n/t

[MrScorpio]

102. Cops generally come only in one color...

Blue.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrScorpio]

106. Yes, that's exactly what I saying.

Black cops can be bad cops too.

[EOTE]

162. I see. Once a black police officer is involved, racism stops existing.

Do you think before making such silly and uninformed comments?

[Raineyb]

168. You think it matters what race the cop is? Blue is blue is blue and blue hates black. n/t

[Taitertots]

204. Do you think African American police are racist against African Americans?

That sounds amazingly delusional.

[Raineyb]

238. I think cops see all non cops as the enemy. Once that uniform comes on they all become blue

Which is exactly what I said. So either you are being disingenuous in which case there's no point in wasting time answering you again or you're incapable of reading, in which case there's no point in wasting time answering you as you can't fucking read. Either way engaging with you is a colossal waste of time.

All cops see black and brown people as more suspicious than white people. It's a bias that comes with the uniform and training.

[Taitertots]

240. So African American police officers think African Americans are their enemy?

There is no point discussing this with you because you are hopelessly delusional if you think all cops see you as an enemy. Talk about paranoia, they are all out to get you.

[Raineyb]

243. There's no point in talking to YOU because you're blind and refuse to

step out of your preconceived notions. Police are more likely to stop people of color, they're more likely to frisk people of color, they're more likely to pull over people of color, they're more likely to arrest people of color, people of color are more likely to see court, and if convicted are more likely to to do longer sentences. The entire system is biased against people of color. Not to mention that people of color are more likely to be shot by fucking cops because cops see them as suspects and not as people and that goes for black cops too. Black cops are as likely to be bad cops as white ones. I don't discriminate, it's the blue and the culture it foments that's the problem. And yes cops see most of us suspects rather than people especially when the person is question is a person of color. The profession foments an "us against them" culture and "us" would be anyone who wears the blue and "them" is the public at large, a fact that many off duty cops of color find out rather quickly when they do something that white cops do all the time without being shot at, pull out their gun while off duty to chase after someone, or work undercover.

So no I'm not about to pretend that the police are here to serve and that they are my friend, their biases and attitude clearly says that I am not and I'm not a damn fool.

[liberalhistorian]

84. It wouldn't have been "nothing" to you

if YOU were the couple stopped and put at gunpoint. I really don't think you'd find cops coming at you with guns drawn and being forced to your knees and handcuffed, especially if you were eight months pregnant, to be "much ado about nothing."

[Cid_B]

242. No big deal..

Mistakes happen and everyone is chomping at the bit to get their own pound of flesh...

The last time I had a weapon pointed at my face (AK-47, it was) I told my story, cleared the confusion and moved along just like these people.

[Raineyb]

91. Bullshit. Why were those plates run? The car didn't even match the description

of the stolen car. Yet these assholes took it upon themselves, not to check their shit but to shove their guns to the heads of a man and his pregnant girlfriend, forcing her to kneel when they know damn well they have no business forcing a pregnant woman to do.

And as it bears repeating as the excuse-makers are so adept at ignoring facts, why the hell were their plates run again?

[Blue Diadem]

178. That wasn't a typical traffic stop. Guns were drawn and occupants were treated as criminals.

Unharmed? I can't imagine the stress, humiliation and fear those two innocent people felt. Being held at gun point when you've done nothing wrong is not much ado about nothing.

[USArmyParatrooper]

87. I'm not sure what the reason is for posting this

Is there a larger point you're getting at?

[MrScorpio]

90. It's part of a bigger picture...

Cops are fucking up ALL OVER THE PLACE.

If you ever have the misfortune of coming across them, be careful not to get shot.

[USArmyParatrooper]

94. I've had many, many interactions with the police

The only time I had a problem with one misbehaving was ONE time, in East Palo Alto California where one threatened to "pull me out of the car and beat my white ass."

There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the country, each one having many different interactions with the public every day. We also live in the information age where with a few key strokes you can find just about anything. Posting an avalanche of anecdotes and individual stories doesn't make some epic "problem"

We also have tons of school teachers in the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20009113-504083.html
Teacher has sex with student

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2010/jun/17/students-found-drinking-teachers-home-ar-113403/
Teacher drinking with students

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=86&art_id=nw20100629202508936C454840
Teacher beating students

I could sit here day after day posting scandal after scandal with teachers all over the country. I could also decide to broad brush teachers and others could join in, forming a symphony teacher haters pushing the idea that we should be afraid to send our kids off to school. OR, I recognize and appreciate that most teachers are decent people and that they provide a vital service to society. Sure, I don't mind pointing fingers at bad teachers or pointing out when they screw up, in this case a police officer doing a catch & release because he typed in the wrong plate number.

[MrScorpio]

98. Are you saying that police misconduct and brutality is no big deal?

Just asking in general terms.

[USArmyParatrooper]

103. Of course not

And absolutely nothing I have said remotely resembles that sentiment.

[MrScorpio]

105. But you know, when you're dismissive of police misconduct...

Then you do appear to make such a sentiment.

That would be an assumption on my part in trying to understand why you would be so disdainful about the of posting a story about that poor, innocent couple.

[USArmyParatrooper]

109. Let me ask you this...

If I were to post stories day in and day out about school teachers doing abhorrent things, how do you think that would go over on DU? How much positive attention do you think it would get? I can easily match scandal for scandal for every single cop hating thread.

I just have this thing against type-casting people and all the cop hating threads on DU are meant to do just that.

They were arrested due to a typo and immediately released. Was it because they were black? I don't know.

Here's a guy who was released from prison due to a typo. Was this because he was black?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/man_released_from_ohio_prison.html

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[USArmyParatrooper]

121. That's funny. I'm "vadawg" and a number of other names

Is it really the DU way that when someone disagrees with you they must really be someone else that you happen to disagree with? That seems like a pretty childish approach.

[smokey nj]

115. You might want to read that article more closely.

Mr. Wells wasn't mistakenly released, he was released on appeal because of a mistake on a jury-verdict sheet. Mr. Wells had already served 4 years in prison.

From the article:

"Wells most recently had been serving the fourth year of a 10-year prison sentence in Ohio before being released in June on appeal, due to a typographical error on a jury-verdict sheet that made the number of years unclear. Wells was then extradited to Morris County to answer an outstanding probation violation from 2000."

[MrScorpio]

118. If these were teachers doing bad things, then more power to you

You wouldn't hear one objection from me.

Now whether or not this could be classified as just another case of DWB, I myself, have one question that hasn't been answered satisfactorily: Which is, why were their plates being run in the first place?

If you have an answer for that, I'd like to know what it is.

And frankly, I really don't understand what the point is about posting a story about a fuck up by the Dept. of Corrections.

"Shit happens?" Sure, I'll run with that.

There's no racial component to that story at all, from what I can see.

But, it's nice to know that you will resort to some straw-manisms when you're trying to make a point.

[USArmyParatrooper]

120. What straw-manisms are you referring to?

[MrScorpio]

122. You know...

That whole teacher thing.

Nice way that you tried to divert attention from the original discussion.

It didn't work, by the way. We're still talking about inept cops here.

But, if you want to start your own thread about bad teachers, fire away.


You might be on to something there.

[USArmyParatrooper]

124. First, learn the definition of "strawman"

A strawman argument is one that is made against something the other person didn't say, usually one that is similar.

Person A: "I think there should be tight controls on who is allowed to own a gun"

Person B: "You don't think people should be allowed to own guns? It's our right!"

THAT is strawman.

Also, using an analogy for comparison sake is NOT diverting the attention away from the topic. The teachers analogy made the point that by the sheer numbers of police out there and the laws of probability, it is inevitable that there will be a plethora of examples of police doing bad things. I used teachers simply because they're an example of a group that is never bashed, is generally appreciated on DU and their sheer numbers gives them the same laws of probability.

Point being: Even if you post an avalanche of examples of cops misbehaving it does not justify type-casting police officers or broad brushing them. Why? Because the same can be done for any large group, including teachers.

[MrScorpio]

126. So, you're saying that you could have used dog catchers, instead of teachers, for example?

Not your words, just saying though. I still have no idea why such a diversion has anything to do with the discussion at hand, other than trying to defend bad cop behavior here.

Yes, this discussion is about BAD cops. Not, broad brushing cops in general. The good cops, well I hazard to guess that most of us cool with them.

Right, guys?

But, I want to make clear that when I do post stories about cops, it's only about the bad ones.

And do you know why?

Well, it's because I'd like to know what kinds of things other people would say in order to defend bad cop behavior... Not just to make an example out of the bad cops out there. These guys are supposed to be our public servants, not some armed occupying force, running roughshod over citizens' rights in our communities. They're supposed to uphold the law, not use it as a shield for their own crimes of brutalization. They're supposed to do what's right, not make other people suffer while they try to cover their own asses.

They're supposed to be held to a higher standard.

But what we get from you is stuff like... "OOOOH, look at all those bad teachers waaaaayy over there, they're just like bad cops!"

BTW, no they're not. Cops come with badges, arrest power and big fucking chips on a lot of their shoulders, teachers don't. The equation doesn't hold water.


Now, if you want to equate bad teachers with bad Catholic priests, I think that you might be on to something there.

[USArmyParatrooper]

130. There are bad people in every large group

So yeah, dog catchers would also apply.

I still have no idea why such a diversion has anything to do with the discussion at hand, other than trying to defend bad cop behavior here.


"Also, using an analogy for comparison sake is NOT diverting the attention away from the topic. The teachers analogy made the point that by the sheer numbers of police out there and the laws of probability, it is inevitable that there will be a plethora of examples of police doing bad things. I used teachers simply because they're an example of a group that is never bashed, is generally appreciated on DU and their sheer numbers gives them the same laws of probability."

Yes, this discussion is about BAD cops. Not, broad brushing cops in general. The good cops, well I hazard to guess that most of us cool with them.

Right, guys?

There's a whooooole lot of broad brushing that goes on in these threads, including people calling cops "pigs" and the like.

But what we get from you is stuff like... "OOOOH, look at all those bad teachers waaaaayy over there, they're just like bad cops!"

BTW, no they're not. Cops come with badges, arrest power and big fucking chips on a lot of their shoulders, teachers don't. The equation doesn't hold water.

Now THAT was an example of a strawman argument. I never said bad teachers are just like bad cops. I said they're just one example of how there are bad people in every large group.

[MrScorpio]

132. But still... What's your point?

What is the relevance of bring teachers into a discussion about bad cops?

Just to say the obvious that bad people come in different occupations?

[USArmyParatrooper]

134. Let's take this back to the beginning

I asked what the point of this thread was.

You said, "Cops are fucking up ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you ever have the misfortune of coming across them, be careful not to get shot."

I thought what you said was a quite a bit on the hysterical side. I've had countless encounters with the police under a variety of circumstances, and all of the 'bad cop' threads in the world aren't going to give me some irrational fear of cops. Undoubtedly what comes next a smorgasbord of examples of bad cops trying to "prove" we should all be worried. Well, I no more worry if I'm in the presence of a police officer than I worry about sending my daughter off to school... even with allll those examples of teachers sexually abusing students.

[MrScorpio]

136. So, let me get this straight...

And I'm assuming that you're a just a regular white guy living in America, right...

You're saying, from your perspective, that we all need not be generally wary of cops whenever they cross our paths? And that the countless anecdotes of poor policing from various places in American should be chalked up to just, I dunno, nothing to worry about?

Please, I'd like to know. This is very important.

[USArmyParatrooper]

140. It depends on what you mean

by "nothing to worry about." It doesn't mean we shouldn't be very critical of police officers (or anyone) who do bad things.

But I don't think a mere interaction with a police officer warrants having to worry about "getting shot", as you put it. Whether one talks to you in a convenience store, you're making a statement because you witnessed something, the cops show up because your music is too loud, you're getting a traffic ticket, etc... it's extraordinarily unlikely he's going to shoot you.

[MrScorpio]

142. Well, I deal with cops under a few general SOPs...

As in always keeping in mind that they are invariably armed and can arrest me on the basis of what I say or do, or what they SAID I said or did.

Also, as evidenced by the OP, one not need to do anything wrong at all to give cops an excuse to pull such a person over, force them on their knees on a hot asphalt and handcuff them with a loaded shotgun shoved in their face.

When I last checked, that's something that most cops can do in America, and not something that teachers would do, per se.

Thirdly, and as a soldier you should already know this, armed professionals should never point a gun at anyone that they don't intend to shoot. So, again with the folks in the OP, the possibility was definitely there.

Now, I haven't even said anything about bad cops yet.

Bad cops, and if you have all day, I can show example after example of innocent lives being torn apart because of abusive asshole cops who are just out of control.
Yes, just any cop that you run into, at any particular time, may not shoot you. But it doesn't mean that they won't. Because you never know what's on his or her mind.

But, from what I've observed, if ANY COP, good, bad or indifferent, is under the impression, mistaken or otherwise, that you represent a threat to his or her person or his or her authority, things will invariably NOT go well for you, whether he or she puts fifty bullets in your ass or not.

[USArmyParatrooper]

144. The OP isn't evience they don't need an excuse

It's evidence that mistakes can and do happen, but I'm also not going to drive around worrying that a cop is going to punch in the wrong key and have my car come up as a stolen vehicle.

Should you be mindful that a police officer is in a position of authority? Of course. You should also be mindful that they're always weary of threats, so don't go around making quick moves toward your pockets and stuff like that.

As far as not pointing your weapon at something you don't intend to shoot, that's not entirely true. If you want to use a military comparison we can do that. If we receive an OPORD (Operation Order) to go after an HVT (High Value Target) we'll receive a briefing on a planned raid where our intent is to capture ("arrest", if you will) a suspected terrorist. You can bet we'll come busting in with our weapons at the high ready, even though we only plan to discharge them if we receive a viable threat.

Do you honestly believe if a cop stops a *stolen* car he should just walk up to the window with his weapon holstered? Just handing out traffic tickets empty handed is dangerous enough, but with when the driver is a likely felon it's many times more dangerous.

[MrScorpio]

148. My point was that the people who had guns pointed at them didn't do anything wrong

It was TOTALLY up to the cops to do detain them as they did, with weapons drawn and only with their faulty knowledge in regard.

But before they put innocent citizens in possible mortal danger, don't you think it behooved the boys in blue to get their intended (possible) targets right?

So really, you don't have to be wrong to get wronged by the police.

Some people in the past have tried to tell a cop that he was wrong when he definitely was. Some of these people have been tazed or beaten, charged with assault on a police officer, when it was only the cop doing the assaulting and thrown in the pokey. Some of these people have been shot dead.

Others, like the people in the OP, have been released with only their dignity left in tatters.

For many, that is the state of policing in this country.

We should all learn by their example.

[USArmyParatrooper]

149. It was a mistake

He ran the plates and it came back stolen. THAT was the mistake, not drawing his weapon. It's ludicrous to suggest police officers shouldn't have their weapons at the ready when arresting a perceived felon in a stolen vehicle. I'm not saying it's "no big deal", they shouldn't make mistakes like that. Honestly, if it happened to me I'd be laughing about it afterward. I'd just look at it as having one hell of a story to tell for the rest of my life. But I also understand that everyone is different and for some people something like that can be traumatic.

I'm not excusing the mistake they made, but this particular case isn't so outrageous that I'm ready to grab a mob with pitchforks and torches and head over to the Dallas police station. I'm also not going recklessly assume racism was involved simply because the drivers happen to be black. he

The problem I have is so many people on here posting thread after thread about "OMG look what this cop did!" and "OMG look at what that cop did!" and praising a coffee shop owner for shitting on a cop who did nothing wrong but walk in and buy a cup of coffee from his store. That and calling the police "pigs" and just overall stereotyping them.

[MrScorpio]

152. but, still I wonder, WHY were their plates being run in the first place?

Is simply the fact that two black people are riding around in a nice car cause enough for them to be investigated by suspicious cops?

[USArmyParatrooper]

153. Here's the problem I have with that question

"Is simply the fact that two black people are riding around in a nice car cause enough for them to be investigated by suspicious cops?"

When there is zero evidence that race is involved your question is no different then asking someone, "Do you beat your wife?"

You're not accusing, you're just asking. It's possible this guy beats his wife, right?

I don't know why they ran the plates but the police run license plates all the time. Is the mere fact that the guy is black evidence that they ran the plates because he's black? BTW, I don't consider any 2005 Chrysler to be that nice of a car.

[MrScorpio]

154. Well, the 2005 Chrysler 300 and 2009 Chrysler 300 are nearly identical cars

But that's a another story.

What I'm really what interested in is why do you think it's necessary for the police to run plates of ordinary people who are doing nothing except going about their business on the road?

Anything at all?

Well, of course, I'm going to give you my opinion, which comes from a different perspective. And I hope that this will be an eye opener for you.

It's the simple fact, that for different people, the American experience stands for different things.

For you, the ordinary white guy, America is a place where the cops are officer friendlies, going on about their jobs and you have no need to be wary of their motivation or actions.

For others, this country is a virtual police state, where the police investigates them for no reason at all. Now America may not be police state in the sense of the Republic of Korea, when I was stationed there and routinely saw people get bludgeoned in the street by ROK cops, merely because they had to audacity to protest the police state that they were living under at the time.

But however, in this country, if you are of the "wrong" kind of people, the police will always have an impetus to check you out. "Wrong" could be anything, it could be black, or gay, or latino. "Wrong" could be a skateboarder or someone who happens to live in the "wrong" neighborhood. "Wrong" could be a great many things. But "wrong" is ALWAYS what any particular cop feels it is at any particular time.

Results of that checking out may vary (Like having a shotgun pointed at you, because the cops can't even double check their own work).

It's always been that way, and as far can I can see, will always be that way.

So when I see an ordinary, innocent black couple getting harassed, as they were, I hope that you can at least to sympathize with me that such an incident would make me say, as an ordinary black guy in America, there but for the grace of God, go I.

One thing that I love about DU is the opportunity for all of us to share each of our particular points of view. You have yours and I have mine.

With open minds, we should all be able to learn from each other and from examples as depicted above.

[USArmyParatrooper]

155. Being black in America

My grandfather is from Jamaica and is 1/8th black. Even though technically this makes me part black, it's such a small part you cannot tell at all. So for practical purposes it's fair to say I only understand America from a white perspective.

Honestly, I wish I could be black for a week just to see if my day-to-day experience would change, and by how much.

My anacdotal experience leads me to believe that yes, generally blacks are viewed by society with more suspicion than whites, and that includes by police officers. But I also believe personal appearance plays a bigger role. In other words a white guy who dresses punk would be viewed with more suspicion that a clean cut black man in a suit and tie. But a black man with corn rows and baggy pants has a good chance of being stereotyped as a "gangsta," so I guess I can see your point of view.

In the end though, I view charges of racism to be a very serious accusation. And as such they shouldn't be thrown around willy nilly.

[Raineyb]

169. You think we don't consider the charge serious? It's bloody serious and you're dismissing it

because you can't see it. And why would you bother it generally only happens to those black and brown people and apparently they don't have any concerns you need bother to take seriously.

[Occulus]

111. The way you just diverted it from cops to teachers says exactly that n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

117. It doesn't conveniently "say" what you want it to say

Using an analogy =/= diverting the conversation.

[Ikonoklast]

147. He uses that very same tactic in every cop-defending post.

Deflect from the issue being discussed, using teachers as the example.

Another apologist for the authoritarians.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[USArmyParatrooper]

96. Are you capable of holding a rational conversation without personalizing it?

I'm just curious.

[Orsino]

101. An "honest" mistake, occurring within a dishonest system...

...in which no individual but the victim accepts any responsibility.

[Taverner]

110. Texas Lawmen

Judge, Jury and Executioners

[MrScorpio]

119. One good reason why I'm glad that I don't live in Texas anymore. nt

[Rex]

202. Funny, I've lived in Texas most of my life and have had very few

if any bad cop encounters. Guess it all depends on the time of day and the place? I seriously doubt cops are worse in Texas then any other state, but I could be wrong. :shrug:

[Raineyb]

239. I suspect it has more to do with the color of your skin whether or not your encounter

with the police end up negative or not.

I tell my nephew to avoid them as much as possible his life may depend on it.

[Dawson Leery]

127. The couple detained drove a 2005 Chrysler; the stolen car was a 1995 Chevrolet

Perhaps this was a case of DWB?

[MrScorpio]

128. It's definitely one of those things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmm." nt

[sam sarrha]

129. lucky they didn't taser the fetus for not getting out also..

[Lucian]

131. Guns drawn for a stolen fucking car?

So a car is more important than a person's life?

:wtf:

I know the couple didn't steal the car, but seriously, why guns drawn?

[MrScorpio]

133. It's Texas...

Any port in a storm, baby.

[USArmyParatrooper]

137. That's reasonable to me

It doesn't mean a car is worth a person's life. It's a defensive posture because they're attempting to arrest a suspected felon, and the police officers have no idea if the car thieves are armed and/or if they have a propensity toward violence.

Are you willing to join the police force, pull over a stolen car, and walk right up to the window with your gun holstered and politely ask them to exit so you can arrest them? Cops get shot all the time just pulling people over for even the most mundane shit.

[Lucian]

139. I see the way you're defending rogue cops...

and it's sickening.

[USArmyParatrooper]

141. Pulling guns when stopping a stolen car isn't "roque"

[Lucian]

143. All I see is "ignored."

[USArmyParatrooper]

146. "ignored" = "inability to engage"

Under the guise of, "you're not worth my time"

[Skip Intro]

150. He said: "ignored" = "inability to engage"

Under the guise of, "you're not worth my time"

[Raineyb]

170. But tazing an 80 something year old bedridden woman and stepping on her

oxygen tube certainly is and you defended that shit too.

You are an apologist for authoritarianism. The least you can do is be honest about it.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rainbow4321]

138. Dallas PD seems to be imploding this week

There is this story (the OP link) and then:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062910dnmetbrownescortfolo.e97fc1eb.html

The Dallas Police Department's second in command apologized Monday for a decision to provide an escort for the funeral procession of Chief David Brown's son, who killed a Lancaster officer and another man. But he also defended his actions.

"The decision to utilize these resources was unplanned, and the sole purpose of their presence was to address the immediate public safety issue," First Assistant Chief Charlie Cato wrote in a prepared statement.

"We recognized there might be concerns about our decision," he wrote. "I truly regret and apologize to anyone who has been offended or hurt by this decision. Please know that neither I nor intended in any way to be disrespectful to any fallen officer."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062910dnmetsexassault.efd4744e.html


A Dallas police officer accused of sexually assaulting a woman while on duty was fired today, police officials said.

Officer Jeffrey Thorn, 26, faces a sexual assault charge in an incident that occurred on Friday, police said. He was arrested today, police said.

Because he was hired in December 2008, Thorn was still on probation as a new officer. Thorn was assigned to the Southeast Patrol Division.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

198. but the cop had to sexually assault that woman to save himself !

Don't you understand that cops face danger every day?!? That officer felt compelled to rape that woman to protect himself from her!

:eyes:

Some people will excuse any evil simply because they long to lick the boot that kicks them.

[HardWorkingDem]

241. So many red flags here....

Wow.

How is that a site with the ideals proclaimed here jumps from A to Z so quickly without getting all parts of the story or ask follow up questions?


Too many people jump to too many conclusions on threads like this.

For example, one points out the vehicles were nothing alike. Do people here realize how many times people switch license plates?


Then, people automatically jump to the intent and thoughts of all involved.

I don't know if a video of the stop is available, but normally, when a potential or thought stolen vehicle is stopped, most officers are trained to perform a "felony" vehicle stop. Exact methods of this vary, but mostly involve removing person from vehicle from a safe position by oral commands and yes, with firearms out of their holster.


I wish people here would realize, ANY person can KILL another person. A woman can kill, a young boy can kill. An elderly man can kill. ANY one can kill.
And just yesterday it was reported two police officers were gunned down on a traffic stop by a person with warrants for WORTHLESS CHECKS! Two human beings killed over bogus checks.