Riots in Missouri - Part 3

[MessiahDecoy123]

You seem to be saying that someone harassing a cop(giving them trouble), doesn't DESERVE to be arrested for their crappy behavior?

I can only imagine how someone who "gives the cops too much trouble," acts towards normal people when there are likely to be no consequences at all for their behavior.

No, I'm simply saying there are repercussions for giving a cop "too much trouble". It's not like people can give cops a hard time without being promptly punished.

Tempest suggested that people mistreat the police for whatever reason they feel like.

Such behavior results in an arrest record. Cops aren't powerless victims. They get to punish their adversaries on the spot.

 

[Tempest]

No, I'm simply saying there are repercussions for giving a cop "too much trouble". It's not like people can give cops a hard time without being promptly punished.

Tempest suggested that people mistreat the police for whatever reason they feel like.

Such behavior results in an arrest record. Cops aren't powerless victims. They get to punish their adversaries on the spot.

Broad strokes. Not every situation calls for an arrest, or a ticket. Secondly, depending on what is happening, the officer is probably not "punishing" the offender. If the offender has acted out aggressively, the officer is well within their rights to respond in kind.

What irritated me about your comment was that you suggested that a police officer would 'ruin' someone's year with an arrest record. That took the responsibility of an arrest out of the civilian's hands, and rested it solely on the officer. That's irresponsible, and kind of mean.

There are lots of good people in the police force. It's a shame that more of those stories don't get shared, so people could see that.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Broad strokes. Not every situation calls for an arrest, or a ticket. Secondly, depending on what is happening, the officer is probably not "punishing" the offender. If the offender has acted out aggressively, the officer is well within their rights to respond in kind.

What irritated me about your comment was that you suggested that a police officer would 'ruin' someone's year with an arrest record. That took the responsibility of an arrest out of the civilian's hands, and rested it solely on the officer. That's irresponsible, and kind of mean.

There are lots of good people in the police force. It's a shame that more of those stories don't get shared, so people could see that.

I was actually under-stating the cost of challenging a cop's authority. It won't just ruin a person's year, it will ruin their life in many cases. While it's safe to say people should learn the importance of complying with the police, lets be honest here, if someone's entire life is ruined for not complying with a cop for 30 misguided seconds, does the punishment really fit the crime? Keep in mind things can quickly escalate simply because you disagree with a cops actions. Sometimes this disagreement is trivial and other times it's valid.

Cops don't need better publicity. There are plenty of people who give the police the benefit of the doubt and regard them as heroes. Those who remain skeptical and distrustful of the police in general are a vocal minority, for better or for worse.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't buy this quasi-fascist rhetoric that you always have to do exactly what a cop says. I mean, they may be officers of the peace, but they are only human. And as we know all too well quite often abuse power.

And I say quasi-fascist because the argument seems to be "do what cops say because they're so incompetent they might inadvertently kill you because they're poorly trained". Not because they're automatically right.

Which is in some ways worse than just being told "mindlessly obey authority".

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do find this article to be hysterical.

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/12/13/police-all-of-a-sudden-were-all-racist-killers/

Police upset about being stereotyped by black people... The irony is too much.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just to be clear, I acknowledge the police's dangerous and important job of getting sociopaths and predators off the street.

My main conflict is their job to antagonize all forms of subversion indiscriminately.

I happen to feel some forms of subversion are necessary for a free society to remain free.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

haha....ask most cops, they don't see IA as cops, or cops that have their backs.

I haven't seen that in my experiences.

That's something you see in the movies.

Going into IA is just like going into any other specialized unit. I'm all for them investigating and getting rid of the people who don't deserve to wear a badge.

Follow your guidelines and do the right thing and you don't have anything to worry about from your fellow Corporal or Sergeant or whoever who transferred to IA. In my department and I'm sure most large agencies, officers assigned to IA still work the streets in overtime positions or parttime work... they're still cops; IA is just their assigned unit. No biggie.

(if you're in IA though, prepare to be the butt of a lot of jokes....) lol

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Thank you for your service.

Thanks, I appreciate that. Thanks for what you do too.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Yeah, I guess only a cop can make a valid complaint how the system is biased in favor of the police. Though I'm not certain you would yield your position to some rogue cop who thought the system was biased in favor of cops.

But I'm going to avoid using media coverage (like Eric Garner or Rodney King) and go straight for statistics since the outcome of these high profile cases are magically decided by the media themselves.

Here's statistical data on the NYPD.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/downloads/pdf/2013 Statistical Appendix_Rev1.pdf

On table 24B it shows only 3% of complaints against police result in charges.

So either 97% of complaints against NY police are complete lies or there's a systematic problem.

Look... I can't even begin to comment on that statistical data sheet you provided because it would be totally irresponsible of me (and you) to make a judgment call unless I was on the scene of EVERY SINGLE POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION WHERE A COMPLAINT WAS LATER LODGED AGAINST THE POLICE.

So, since that's impossible, all I can say is that I have a general opinion about complaints, based on my experiences, and it is this....

3% of complaints against police resulting in charges sounds about right.

Why?

Because... 1) when you say "charges", do you only mean criminal charges? Because if you look at the chart you provided, two of the categories are "Abuse of Authority" (which between 2009-2013 consistently ranked as the highest percentage of complaints lodged) and "Discourtesy" would not result in criminal charges....

You do realize that "Abuse of Authority" and "Discourtesy" complaints, even if sustained, probably don't break any local or state laws whatever.

Example:

You get pulled over by a cop and during the course of the traffic stop the cop says "F**k you" to you.

You, later, go to the police department and lodge a complaint and it gets put into the "Discourtesy" category.

IA does an investigation and sustains the complaint.

The officer is then given a written reprimand or some kind of administrative penalty for cursing/using foul language directed at you.

Congratulations. You won.

But the officer is not getting "charged". Charged with what? A crime? The officer didn't commit a crime. He cursed at you. That's not a crime.

I can tell you right away that when I look at the "Abuse of Authority" and "Discourtesy" boxes (Pages 6, 7).... none of those complaints, if sustained, would be crimes.

If a police officer stops you and threatens to arrest you (see Table 3) and, I guess, your feelings were hurt, so you go the police department and cry about it... and somehow IA finds the officer was out of line... and sustains the complaint... again, there's no criminal charge for "threat of arrest"...

My next point:

2) A lot of complaints are bogus. All the time people will be stopped, frisked, have their cars searched, etc... and people will think their rights were violated... so they make a complaint to the corresponding police department.

And guess what?

The person filing the complaint has no idea what their rights are. They know nothing about Terry Stops, or their 4th Amendment rights... and their complaints get thrown out pretty quick once IA looks at the corresponding police report or arrest report and sees the reasonable suspicion or probable cause was solid and the officer did nothing wrong...

It's funny that as I write all this I just had court this morning for a defendant charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and failure to obey a lawful order, and traffic citations, and the defendant refused to take a plea deal even though the whole thing was caught on camera and the defendant was SURELY AT FAULT and acting like a complete NUTCASE... and yet the defendant wouldn't take a plea because "the defendant knew their rights"... yeah, the Judge wasn't hearing it... and the defendant finally took a plea...

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Most people just want to go home every night and walk on eggshells when stopped by the police.

Sure some people catch an attitude with the police but it's not like those people scare the police away with their tails between their legs.

It's much more likely the cop will ruin the rowdy suspect's year with an arrest record.

I don't know what you're talking about, buddy.

The cops I work with and I are not in the business of "ruining the rowdy suspect's year with an arrest record"....

I didn't know that I was cruelly inconveniencing the poor, sad suspect's year when I arrested him/her for driving a stolen vehicle, or for violating a protection order for the 2nd time, or for robbing a 7-11 convenience store at gunpoint on it's 2nd "Grand Opening" night...

Sheesh, sorry I bothered that poor suspect's year. I hope he finds it in his heart to forgive me.... lol

You know who I feel bad for? The two store clerks who are working the night shift at this brand new 7-11 who said to me "I didn't know it was going to be like this. I'm gonna have to get another job" when they realized it only took ONE DAY OF BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC before they had a gun pointed at their face and guy demanded money from the registered or he swore to kill them.

And every time I arrest someone driving a stolen vehicle, the victim is always very happy when I call them and tell them I found their car.... geeze, the victim usually is more angry at the arrested individual than I am!!! lol

 

[Ilikecomics123]

It won't just ruin a person's year, it will ruin their life in many cases. While it's safe to say people should learn the importance of complying with the police, lets be honest here, if someone's entire life is ruined for not complying with a cop for 30 misguided seconds, does the punishment really fit the crime?

I have yet to meet a police officer who "ruined someone's entire life" because they didn't comply for 30 seconds.

*sigh*

If you don't get mail, you'll never need a postal worker...

If you don't have a fire, you'll never need a firefighter...

If you never have a plumbing problem, you'll never need a plumber...

If you never have a medical emergency outside of a hospital, you'll never need a paramedic...

Likewise, if you never call 911 asking for police assistance or never break the law, you'll never need or meet me...

If you encounter me, it's either because 1) you called for me 2) you broke the law 3) you're suspected of having committed a crime, committing a crime, or about to commit a crime... and I have yet to falsely arrest or arrest the wrong person and ruin an entire life over nothing...

I'm not stupid.

If you just stand there and talk to me and let me do my thing I'll figure out you're not the suspect involved in committing the crime and then I'll say "see ya have a nice day" and even write a report saying a stopped you in order to justify my actions and so you can feel happy it was documented.

But unfortunately, a lot of people DO NOT like being stopped by the police NO MATTER WHAT. And guess what? That makes you look pretty suspicious when I clearly explain to you why you're being stopped and you 1) act belligerent 2) run away 3) act aggressive and/or start to fight...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Look... I can't even begin to comment on that statistical data sheet you provided because it would be totally irresponsible of me (and you) to make a judgment call unless I was on the scene of EVERY SINGLE POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION WHERE A COMPLAINT WAS LATER LODGED AGAINST THE POLICE.

So, since that's impossible, all I can say is that I have a general opinion about complaints, based on my experiences, and it is this....

3% of complaints against police resulting in charges sounds about right.

Why?

Because... 1) when you say "charges", do you only mean criminal charges? Because if you look at the chart you provided, two of the categories are "Abuse of Authority" (which between 2009-2013 consistently ranked as the highest percentage of complaints lodged) and "Discourtesy" would not result in criminal charges....

You do realize that "Abuse of Authority" and "Discourtesy" complaints, even if sustained, probably don't break any local or state laws whatever.

Example:

You get pulled over by a cop and during the course of the traffic stop the cop says "F**k you" to you.

You, later, go to the police department and lodge a complaint and it gets put into the "Discourtesy" category.

IA does an investigation and sustains the complaint.

The officer is then given a written reprimand or some kind of administrative penalty for cursing/using foul language directed at you.

Congratulations. You won.

But the officer is not getting "charged". Charged with what? A crime? The officer didn't commit a crime. He cursed at you. That's not a crime.

I can tell you right away that when I look at the "Abuse of Authority" and "Discourtesy" boxes (Pages 6, 7).... none of those complaints, if sustained, would be crimes.

If a police officer stops you and threatens to arrest you (see Table 3) and, I guess, your feelings were hurt, so you go the police department and cry about it... and somehow IA finds the officer was out of line... and sustains the complaint... again, there's no criminal charge for "threat of arrest"...

My next point:

2) A lot of complaints are bogus. All the time people will be stopped, frisked, have their cars searched, etc... and people will think their rights were violated... so they make a complaint to the corresponding police department.

And guess what?

The person filing the complaint has no idea what their rights are. They know nothing about Terry Stops, or their 4th Amendment rights... and their complaints get thrown out pretty quick once IA looks at the corresponding police report or arrest report and sees the reasonable suspicion or probable cause was solid and the officer did nothing wrong...

It's funny that as I write all this I just had court this morning for a defendant charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and failure to obey a lawful order, and traffic citations, and the defendant refused to take a plea deal even though the whole thing was caught on camera and the defendant was SURELY AT FAULT and acting like a complete NUTCASE... and yet the defendant wouldn't take a plea because "the defendant knew their rights"... yeah, the Judge wasn't hearing it... and the defendant finally took a plea...

Even if you ignore cases where there's no criminal charges, the complaints that result in disciplinary action are still under 5%.

Sure there are probably thousands of cases where civilians didn't know exactly what the law allowed the cop to do but there has to be many other cases where a cop was simply abusing his or her position.

Is it not possible that in such cases a cop could get away with abuse simply because the victim couldn't get a badge number or there was no video or audio evidence to back the victim's story?

Under what circumstances would a cop be disciplined for a complaint when it's just his/her word against the victim's?

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Even if you ignore cases where there's no criminal charges, the complaints that result in disciplinary action are still under 5%.

Sure there are probably thousands of cases where civilians didn't know exactly what the law allowed the cop to do but there has to be many other cases where a cop was simply abusing his or her position.

Is it not possible that in such cases a cop could get away with abuse simply because the victim couldn't get a badge number or there was no video or audio evidence to back the victim's story?

Under what circumstances would a cop be disciplined for a complaint when it's just his/her word against the victim's?

I really can't answer that question because I don't work in the IA unit for my department. Maybe one day. And then I will know more of their procedures and how they handle their cases...

But I will tell you one thing... if it's just the officer's word versus the citizen's word, and it is later found out that the officer lied, oh man, he's gonna be in big trouble... lying is not tolerated and he/she could be canned.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't know what you're talking about, buddy.

The cops I work with and I are not in the business of "ruining the rowdy suspect's year with an arrest record"....

I didn't know that I was cruelly inconveniencing the poor, sad suspect's year when I arrested him/her for driving a stolen vehicle, or for violating a protection order for the 2nd time, or for robbing a 7-11 convenience store at gunpoint on it's 2nd "Grand Opening" night...

Sheesh, sorry I bothered that poor suspect's year. I hope he finds it in his heart to forgive me.... lol

You know who I feel bad for? The two store clerks who are working the night shift at this brand new 7-11 who said to me "I didn't know it was going to be like this. I'm gonna have to get another job" when they realized it only took ONE DAY OF BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC before they had a gun pointed at their face and guy demanded money from the registered or he swore to kill them.

And every time I arrest someone driving a stolen vehicle, the victim is always very happy when I call them and tell them I found their car.... geeze, the victim usually is more angry at the arrested individual than I am!!! lol

I'm not talking about violent criminals but rather people who simply refuse to comply and things snowball into the old disorderly conduct/resisting arrest charge.

A person might take a stand against a perceived injustice out of valid or misguided principle. Is it right to mark them all with an equally damaging arrest record?

 

[Ilikecomics123]

I'm not talking about violent criminals but rather people who simply refuse to comply and things snowball into the old disorderly conduct/resisting arrest charge.

A person might take a stand against a perceived injustice out of valid or misguided principle. Is it right to mark them all with an equally damaging arrest record?

I need examples.

You say "the person refuses to comply"...

comply with what?

What did I ask them to comply with?

And how am I responsible for a resisting arrest charge? I don't make people resist. That's all on them.

Where I work I don't find many... or any... people "taking a stand against a perceived injustice" and then I ask them to comply and they refuse and I arrest them and I'm responsible for them resisting arrest....

So I need examples.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have yet to meet a police officer who "ruined someone's entire life" because they didn't comply for 30 seconds.

*sigh*

If you don't get mail, you'll never need a postal worker...

If you don't have a fire, you'll never need a firefighter...

If you never have a plumbing problem, you'll never need a plumber...

If you never have a medical emergency outside of a hospital, you'll never need a paramedic...

Likewise, if you never call 911 asking for police assistance or never break the law, you'll never need or meet me...

If you encounter me, it's either because 1) you called for me 2) you broke the law 3) you're suspected of having committed a crime, committing a crime, or about to commit a crime... and I have yet to falsely arrest or arrest the wrong person and ruin an entire life over nothing...

I'm not stupid.

If you just stand there and talk to me and let me do my thing I'll figure out you're not the suspect involved in committing the crime and then I'll say "see ya have a nice day" and even write a report saying a stopped you in order to justify my actions and so you can feel happy it was documented.

But unfortunately, a lot of people DO NOT like being stopped by the police NO MATTER WHAT. And guess what? That makes you look pretty suspicious when I clearly explain to you why you're being stopped and you 1) act belligerent 2) run away 3) act aggressive and/or start to fight...

You guys aren't robots. Aren't there situations where a cop allows things to escalate simply because they don't like someone's attitude and they anticipate teaching that person a lesson?

and do you think some people who are racially profiled have reason to be justifiably angry?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I need examples.

You say "the person refuses to comply"...

comply with what?

What did I ask them to comply with?

And how am I responsible for a resisting arrest charge? I don't make people resist. That's all on them.

Where I work I don't find many... or any... people "taking a stand against a perceived injustice" and then I ask them to comply and they refuse and I arrest them and I'm responsible for them resisting arrest....

So I need examples.

A person has a dispute with on private property but once the police arrive he or she agrees to leave. Before they are officially off the property the police suddenly ask for ID. The person refuses to comply with the ID request, afraid that their wallet might be mistaken for a weapon. Suddenly the police start screaming for the person to get on the floor. The person senses injustice taking place and refuses to get down.

So basically there is a charge for trespassing and resisting arrest that really stem from a justified refusal to ID.

Also I've seen videos where police scream "stop resisting" and the confused person isn't resisting at all. Are you familiar with this tactic?

 

[Kelly]

I have found that whether the officer is being a jerk or not, I still stay respectful, it usually works out in my favor, meaning a warning and not a ticket.

I understand that some can be on the extreme side, but I also have found that those who knee jerk react (most of what I've seen have come from teenagers through my school and over the years that has been quite a few incidences) those students are also disrespectful to their teachers, assistant principals, principals and their parents.

So, lets put some of the responsibility on the other side as well....many of the times where there has been a confrontation it was a very simply Q&A that the student escalated to being on the ground and cuffed. Responsibility all the way around IMO, is the way to go and start the conversation.

We don't see the videos of the officers being polite and doing their jobs, its not that those don't exist, I would venture to say there are quite a few running around, but that doesn't make news stories.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

You guys aren't robots. Aren't there situations where a cop allows things to escalate simply because they don't like someone's attitude and they anticipate teaching that person a lesson?

and do you think some people who are racially profiled have reason to be justifiably angry?

Again, I can't answer this question because I have never seen another officer or backed up another officer who had a traffic stop or terry stop of an individual and when I asked them "what did you pull him over for?/stop him for?" the officer responded "cause he's black"...

Been a cop since 2010... work for a known large agency... high crime rates... worked my first 3 years in an area that was mixed white/black about 50/50 and for the past year and going into my fifth year the area I work is almost 100% African American and it's the busier part of town to work in.

The basis of your question being that some people were racially profiled is like fantasy-land to me because I've never seen it happen.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

A person has a dispute with on private property but once the police arrive he or she agrees to leave. Before they are officially off the property the police suddenly ask for ID. The person refuses to comply with the ID request, afraid that their wallet might be mistaken for a weapon. Suddenly the police start screaming for the person to get on the floor. The person senses injustice taking place and refuses to get down.

So basically there is a charge for trespassing and resisting arrest that really stem from a justified refusal to ID.

Also I've seen videos where police scream "stop resisting" and the confused person isn't resisting at all. Are you familiar with this tactic?

I have to be honest here.

Your example paints the police as jumpy, outlandish, and unreasonable... it feels really slanted.

Any ways,

Since I've run calls like your example a billion times now... here's how it would work:

Dispatch to police: Units respond to 123 Smith Street. Complainant advises there's an individual refusing to leave his property.

*police arrive*

We talk to the complainant and the person who is on the property but doesn't belong there. We get both sides of the story. Is there a dispute? Can it be resolved? What's the issue? We find out, talk to everyone, try to settle it.

But okay, let's say the "suspect" is at fault, he doesn't belong on the property, and the property owner is telling him to leave. So we tell the guy he has to leave. He accepts.

The police leave. On to the next call.

OR

Yeah, maybe one of the cops asks the suspect to identify himself prior to him leaving. The suspect refuses and continues to walk away and leave the property.

Oh well. The police leave. On to the next call.

The state I work in does not have a "fail to identify" law (except on traffic stops, or in certain other cases)... so if the guy is trespassing, but as soon as police arrive, agrees to leave, but then just keeps walking away and says he doesn't want to identify himself... great, see ya buddy!

Most likely the complainant knows who he is. Plus, it's really the complainant who has a gripe with the guy, so we'll just tell him "if he comes back and trespasses, call us"... cause after being advised by us not to return to the private property, then yeah we can definitely arrest him if he returns.

But again, what's the beef between him and the complainant? Why would he return? Is it some bogus non-sense that is a waste of police time? If it's something bogus and the guy DOES return to the property (but let's say he's GOA or Gone-On-Arrival the second time we show up)... we may just tell the complainant to go file his own charges and let the complainant handle it.

Contrary to popular belief, the police do not want to get involved in every little immature ridiculous nonsense dispute people have with each other. Once you become a cop, you realize grown-adults act like children ALL THE TIME. That's why you'll see a 23 yr old officer talking to a 63 yr old man and the cop talks to him like he's the guy's father. Adults act like kids all day everyday.

So, yeah, very good chance we'll tell the complainant in this case to file his own charges because there's probably some stupid dispute going on between him and the guy who was "trespassing"....

---

If someone IS under arrest and they fail to identify that's their problem. They just sit in jail until the correctional staff IDs them through fingerprinting or other methods and so they'll be in jail that much longer.

I'll write up my charges and leave his identity blank or list him as a "John Doe" until the correctional staff gets back with me the results and tells me who he is.

PS: My state doesn't have a fail to identify law, however we do have "false statement" so lying about who you are can likely lead to your arrest...

PSPS: In my experiences, if someone doesn't want to identify themselves it's because they have outstanding open warrants... plain and simple. Or, they have a rap sheet a mile long and just don't want you (the police) to know about it.

People are not out there making political statements and saying they don't want to identify themselves because they want to make their liberal anti-government message heard loud and clear. Nope. It's cause they got warrants.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have to be honest here.

Your example paints the police as jumpy, outlandish, and unreasonable... it feels really slanted.

Any ways,

Since I've run calls like your example a billion times now... here's how it would work:

Dispatch to police: Units respond to 123 Smith Street. Complainant advises there's an individual refusing to leave his property.

*police arrive*

We talk to the complainant and the person who is on the property but doesn't belong there. We get both sides of the story. Is there a dispute? Can it be resolved? What's the issue? We find out, talk to everyone, try to settle it.

But okay, let's say the "suspect" is at fault, he doesn't belong on the property, and the property owner is telling him to leave. So we tell the guy he has to leave. He accepts.

The police leave. On to the next call.

OR

Yeah, maybe one of the cops asks the suspect to identify himself prior to him leaving. The suspect refuses and continues to walk away and leave the property.

Oh well. The police leave. On to the next call.

The state I work in does not have a "fail to identify" law (except on traffic stops, or in certain other cases)... so if the guy is trespassing, but as soon as police arrive, agrees to leave, but then just keeps walking away and says he doesn't want to identify himself... great, see ya buddy!

Most likely the complainant knows who he is. Plus, it's really the complainant who has a gripe with the guy, so we'll just tell him "if he comes back and trespasses, call us"... cause after being advised by us not to return to the private property, then yeah we can definitely arrest him if he returns.

But again, what's the beef between him and the complainant? Why would he return? Is it some bogus non-sense that is a waste of police time? If it's something bogus and the guy DOES return to the property (but let's say he's GOA or Gone-On-Arrival the second time we show up)... we may just tell the complainant to go file his own charges and let the complainant handle it.

Contrary to popular belief, the police do not want to get involved in every little immature ridiculous nonsense dispute people have with each other. Once you become a cop, you realize grown-adults act like children ALL THE TIME. That's why you'll see a 23 yr old officer talking to a 63 yr old man and the cop talks to him like he's the guy's father. Adults act like kids all day everyday.

So, yeah, very good chance we'll tell the complainant in this case to file his own charges because there's probably some stupid dispute going on between him and the guy who was "trespassing"....

---

If someone IS under arrest and they fail to identify that's their problem. They just sit in jail until the correctional staff IDs them through fingerprinting or other methods and so they'll be in jail that much longer.

I'll write up my charges and leave his identity blank or list him as a "John Doe" until the correctional staff gets back with me the results and tells me who he is.

PS: My state doesn't have a fail to identify law, however we do have "false statement" so lying about who you are can likely lead to your arrest...

PSPS: In my experiences, if someone doesn't want to identify themselves it's because they have outstanding open warrants... plain and simple. Or, they have a rap sheet a mile long and just don't want you (the police) to know about it.

Well I think some cops choose to provoke instead of de-escalate simply because they'd rather see the over-zealous and self-righteous guy or girl ranting about their rights eat some humble pie via the justice system.

Just like racial profiling it's impossible to track this motive among cops without some kind of mind reading device.

But thank you for addressing my various scenarios and questions.

People are not out there making political statements and saying they don't want to identify themselves because they want to make their liberal anti-government message heard loud and clear. Nope. It's cause they got warrants.

Not to nitpick but isn't "liberal anti-government" an oxymoron? t:

I'd say right-wingers are defiant of the government while radical left-wingers are defiant of the police. But again, that was just a nitpick.

 

[SuperT]

Hmmmm

Darren Wilson's Key Witness Was Bipolar Racist Liar

In a damning new report by the Smoking Gun, a crucial witness in the grand jury deciding whether to indict former Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson is revealed as having fabricated her eyewitness account of the altercation between Wilson and unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9. "Witness 40," identified as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, has a documented history of racist remarks, criminal behavior, and mental illness.

http://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-ke...m_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

More at the link.

 

[Chance Jackson]

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports from 2000 to 2004, police-involved “justifiable homicides” kill about 350 people a year, 99 percent by shooting. [Update: see below for 2014 links.] Virtually all police-involved killings, most for good reason, are categorized as justifiable. Of those killed by police, 32 percent are black and 64 percent are white. While the percentage of blacks killed is high compared with the black percentage in America (13%), it is low compared with other indicators of violence, such as the percentage of homicide victims and offenders believed to be African American (both 48%).

Is this accurate?
If true, it seems like even when someone escalates a situation with a cop (resisting arrest) and is a minority they are more likely to get media coverage and support from pundits. I'm not seeing any national stories on cases involving cop shootings on whites for example

You're looking at the "blacks are killed 1/2 as often as whites are by the police" numbers all wrong imo, there are about 9 times as many White people in America so that 1/2 # should be about 1/9 instead if it were 1/8 I probably wouldn't give it much thought but 1/7th raises an eyebrow 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 are all increasingly problematic nevermind the reality that it's 1/2.

 

[Docker2.0]

Again, I can't answer this question because I have never seen another officer or backed up another officer who had a traffic stop or terry stop of an individual and when I asked them "what did you pull him over for?/stop him for?" the officer responded "cause he's black"...

Been a cop since 2010... work for a known large agency... high crime rates... worked my first 3 years in an area that was mixed white/black about 50/50 and for the past year and going into my fifth year the area I work is almost 100% African American and it's the busier part of town to work in.

The basis of your question being that some people were racially profiled is like fantasy-land to me because I've never seen it happen.

You are living in fantasy land if you think it doesn't happen. Not saying you are wrong or lying because you sound like a good cop if you believe what you are saying but you are being naive than a mutha ducka if you think people don't get pulled over because of race.

You're looking at the "blacks are killed 1/2 as often as whites are by the police" numbers all wrong imo, there are about 9 times as many White people in America so that 1/2 # should be about 1/9 instead if it were 1/8 I probably wouldn't give it much thought but 1/7th raises an eyebrow 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 are all increasingly problematic nevermind the reality that it's 1/2.

 

[Victarion]

America's not a racist country. We're pretty forward-thinking and very much a colorblind people.