It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

sheriff defends stopping black man for walking with his hands in his pockets

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Again, there was no crime committed. Thus, the cops were doing pre-crime sweeps.





i would think it maybe could be called a pre crime sweep if there was no 911 call made...maybe

they were following up to an emergency call. calls come in all the time that are not emergencies...still need to be followed up on.
i dont see the problem...
The 911 call reported no crime!

If no crime has been committed, what is there to follow up on?

Observe the situation? Sure.

Start stopping people over a crime that has not, and may not ever be committed? Thats a dangerous precedence.
edit on 2-12-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots


The 911 call reported no crime!

If no crime has been committed, what is there to follow up on?

Observe the situation? Sure.

Start stopping people over a crime that has not, and may not ever be committed? Thats a dangerous precedence.


i dont think so.
i dont see the big deal about stopping someone to have a chat with them...he was not frisked or braced. they didnt run him for warrants...just a chat.

you know that calls come in all the time without an actual crime being committed right?
suspicious activity...things like that...

theyre checked out....

suspicious looking cars parked in places..that kind of stuff.

those calls are followed up on...sometimes its nothing...sometimes its something.

i just dont see the problem here...

had the cop started bracing him or something, that would be different.

seems like a non issue to me



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is what kills me about some of the posters around here. People are willing to accept "you were making people nervous" as a reasonable thing for a cop to say upon stopping and questioning a (black) guy for walking with his hands in his pockets (in Michigan, in winter) and yet the same people will rush to support people like these two:




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
This is what kills me about some of the posters around here. People are willing to accept "you were making people nervous" as a reasonable thing for a cop to say upon stopping and questioning a (black) guy for walking with his hands in his pockets (in Michigan, in winter) and yet the same people will rush to support people like these two:





Not to derail the topic but, that picture is hilarious.

Something tells me that those two wouldn't survive a doomsday scenario even with their weapons.

I can't quite pin point it but, ummmm....yeah.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
the full story says yes everything was fine

if you draw atention it will come

if i was the worker id be worried also

everything ended good ... about how id expect a proper hay ur scaring people stop should go



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

It's a tough call. I can understand both sides of the argument. However, I would question if the owners would have called the police if the guy was white. I'm being sincerely honest when I say the high rate of crime among African Americans gives people a sense of caution when they see a black man acting suspiciously. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's just human nature to stereotype a race or religion by how often their race is being involved in criminal activities, and terrorism.

I say religion, because if terrorist attacks increase in America, I can guarantee Middle Eastern people will be stereotyped exactly the same way as African Americans. When statistics show a particular race has a disproportional higher rate of crime, people will be more on guard and vigilant.

Remember the old proverb..."A few bad apples can ruin the bunch." It's definitely the case with the high rate of crime in black communities. Good law abiding African Americans are getting stereotyped because of a few bad apples. Change has to start from within to diminish or eliminate unfair stereotyping.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

This is what kills me about some of the posters around here. People are willing to support a black man regardless of the situation, and here is another fine example of an officer not arresting, searching, or killing a black man. Yet this black man makes such a big deal out of a non issue, even going to the extreme of standing in the parking lot with his hands up yelling "Don't Mike Brown me" , for no reason.

This happened at a Walmart on black Friday, and all he was asked to do is show his receipt prior to exiting the store. During the holidays, Walmart's all over the country do this to everyone leaving the store. At any Sam's Club, this is done every day of the year. Look at the link below.

Don't Mike Brown Me!

Was this man in the right? As in the case of the OP, the cop ultimately let the man go without even verifying the receipt finally shown to him was correct. The officer was called by Walmart to assist in verifying the man had a valid receipt.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Again, there was no crime committed. Thus, the cops were doing pre-crime sweeps.





i would think it maybe could be called a pre crime sweep if there was no 911 call made...maybe

they were following up to an emergency call. calls come in all the time that are not emergencies...still need to be followed up on.
i dont see the problem...
The 911 call reported no crime!

If no crime has been committed, what is there to follow up on?

Observe the situation? Sure.

Start stopping people over a crime that has not, and may not ever be committed? Thats a dangerous precedence.


Loitering can be a crime, depends on the local laws.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
If no crime has been committed, what is there to follow up on?

Observe the situation? Sure.

Start stopping people over a crime that has not, and may not ever be committed? Thats a dangerous precedence.


A short public investigation isn't a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. I'm as critical of the cops as anyone here, maybe even more so and from what I've read in this case everything went down precisely the way it should. A nervous (and possibly racist) store owner called 911 and the police responded... which we all want them to do when we call 911. They investigated and found the suspect. They stopped and talked to him, there was no use of force, no detention, no beating just to show him his place. Just a respectable discussion to determine what was going on. At the end of the day the suspect walked away with a little more knowledge of how his actions looked to others, and the police determined the area was safe.

That's a win for the store owner, a win for the suspect, and a win for the police.

As far as the man being ticked off goes... that's not the best way to express himself but given that the number of black killings by cops is disproportionate to their share of the population, and that the prisons are almost 90% black even though they're only 10% of the population I think their entire race has the right to vent at times. It's not as overt these days (except by the police), but there is still a lot of implicit racism in our culture and I imagine that gets old at times.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Grovit

This is but another example of the shift in how civilians are treated by LEO.

Since WHEN is one vague complaint from someone reason enough to start stopping people? NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. Yet somehow people think its ok that cops were doing "pre-crime" sweeps.

I wonder how many people actually understand what is happening?

There is a supreme court case, Terry V. something er other, that upholds what the cop did.
It's even called a "Terry Stop"
The cop had the right to search him even, if he wanted to. IMO the cop handled the situation beautifully.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

One late night probably around midnight I noticed someone walking around my garage. Instead of confronting him, I called the cops. No crime was committed not even trespassing since no signs were posted. But as the cops started shinning their lights the guy walked off and they stopped him a little down the road. They questioned him... Later on the cops came to my house and explained to me what happened. They arrested the guy. They cop told me he was acting suspicious and they searched him. They found a crow bar, and small caliber hand gun. They got a warrant to search his home and found all kinds of stuff that had been reported stolen from other peoples cars/garages.

Now was this the cops stopping some one pre-crime or after the fact? If I would not have called because of someone walking around my garage it would have been longer before this guy got arrested.

To me this owner did what he thought was best for his business. The cop did what he was suppose to do assess the situation, ask questions and come to a conclusion that nothing is going on. The civilian did what was best for him too, he was a little confrontational with the whole I am recording this bit, but He handled himself well. To me this is a non-issue but the media is hyping it up.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
A nervous (and possibly racist) store owner called 911 .


why was he possibly racist?
cause he called the cops on a dude he thought was checking out his store?
he had been robbed several times...



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Again, there was no crime committed. Thus, the cops were doing pre-crime sweeps.





i would think it maybe could be called a pre crime sweep if there was no 911 call made...maybe

they were following up to an emergency call. calls come in all the time that are not emergencies...still need to be followed up on.
i dont see the problem...
The 911 call reported no crime!

If no crime has been committed, what is there to follow up on?

Observe the situation? Sure.

Start stopping people over a crime that has not, and may not ever be committed? Thats a dangerous precedence.


Loitering can be a crime, depends on the local laws.
Passing by a window (OF A BUSINESS) a couple of times is not loitering.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




That's a win for the store owner, a win for the suspect, and a win for the police.

Lets see-

A win for the store owner-absolutely. He got to call in with paranoia and confirm that he can report anyone at anytime, and the cops will come.

A win for the cops-absolutely. Just one more rung in the "people wont question us" ladder.

A win for the suspect? Seriously? Its a win for him....HOW, EXACTLY? He was walking, minding his own business, and had to prove his innocence to police. That is NOT a win.

How about society as a whole? Is it a win that society now accepts that a person can report that you are making him nervous, and you now have to answer to that to police? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Since when is it ok for people to have to prove that they are not doing anything wrong in this country?

WIN? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

A win.

edit on 3-12-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Grovit

This is but another example of the shift in how civilians are treated by LEO.

Since WHEN is one vague complaint from someone reason enough to start stopping people? NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. Yet somehow people think its ok that cops were doing "pre-crime" sweeps.

I wonder how many people actually understand what is happening?

There is a supreme court case, Terry V. something er other, that upholds what the cop did.
It's even called a "Terry Stop"
The cop had the right to search him even, if he wanted to. IMO the cop handled the situation beautifully.
A terry stop requires criminal activity to have taken place. No crime happened.

Please, dont cite legal precedence unless you know what you are talking about.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Arrancar




One late night probably around midnight I noticed someone walking around my garage. Instead of confronting him, I called the cops. No crime was committed not even trespassing since no signs were posted. But as the cops started shinning their lights the guy walked off and they stopped him a little down the road
Not sure where you live, but in most places signs do not have to be posted. A private residence is considered private property, thus, he was trespassing.

Ill go a step further, though: If, in your area, this is not considered trespassing, then i believe the cops overstepped their bounds. "Acting suspicious" is not illegal. Unless a crime had been committed, they had no right to stop, frisk, and arrest him.


edit on 3-12-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
This could be an excellent case-study for the pro-body camera crowd. See the police video was able to refute the man's viral video and showed the whole story.

btw: I am all for body cameras and accountability via spot audits of those camera feeds with publicly available findings if that is what it will take to help the police forces of today find their common ground with those they are sworn to protect. Sure, there will be times when force is needed and the awareness of their own actions could just make them better able to assess these times.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

How about society as a whole? Is it a win that society now accepts that a person can report that you are making him nervous, and you now have to answer to that to police? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?




yup. its a win for society as a whole
its nice to know if you call 911 they will follow up, just in case.
cops are allowed to talk to innocent people. they are allowed to ask people a few questions.

he was not charged with a crime. he was innocent before the cop stopped him and innocent after a short conversation.
no big deal.

i say its a win for all



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I applaud you for reading more than the click bait title and opening paragraph before posting this to ATS! Way to show how to properly breakdown a news source!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: Aazadan
A nervous (and possibly racist) store owner called 911 .


why was he possibly racist?
cause he called the cops on a dude he thought was checking out his store?
he had been robbed several times...


I think it was the "big scary black man" stereotype being fueled by his fear from being robbed several times. Makes sense if you think about it.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join