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

this should make for a good discussion

i was ready to slam the cop by the title of the article....then i read the entire article..now, not so much

www.huffingtonpost.com...

A black Michigan man who was stopped by a sheriff's deputy after walking with his hands in his pockets said he believes he was the victim of racial discrimination

"You were walking by … well you were making people nervous," the deputy says in the video McKean recorded, above. "They said you had your hands in your pockets."

"Wow, walking by having your hands in your pockets makes people nervous to call the police, when it's snowing outside?" McKean responds.

"They did," the deputy says. "I'm just checking on you."

--------------------

seems like racial profiling to me....for sure....but then i read some more

-----------------------

The sheriff said that before McKean was questioned, a business owner called 911, audibly frightened, about a man who had walked by the shop six or seven times looking in the windows with his hands in his pockets. The caller believed the man was casing the business and that a robbery could be imminent. The business and its employees had reportedly already been robbed seven times.

------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i would think a business owner that has been robbed several times has a right to be nervous and call the cops....there is more
----------------------

"It boils down to this, if someone calls 911, do you want the police to come or not?" Bouchard said. "A police officer responded, made a quick ascertainment of the situation and determined that nothing else was needed, didn't pat down an individual, never detained an individual, called off secondary units and left. I think that was a very restrained, very professional approach

so, having read that, what do you think? was he profiled?
was it no big thing?

i can see the guy being uptight...for sure....i can see why the store owner called the cops...

i can also see how the cops has to respond to a call. he responded, scoped it out, and it as done...

thoughts?

ive had to answer questions to the cops before...no big deal
the guy didnt do anything wrong...he wasnt searched or detained...

Let him get a lawyer and fight in court. I may not always agree with the police but if I was a business owner and that happened I'd be concerned for the safety of my store. White or black it doesn't matter to me. Odd behavior is often times a precursor to criminal behavior, that's known.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Let him get a lawyer and fight in court. I may not always agree with the police but if I was a business owner and that happened I'd be concerned for the safety of my store. White or black it doesn't matter to me. Odd behavior is often times a precursor to criminal behavior, that's known.

i agree.
the title of the article was about to make me flip out..
even the first paragraph or so....then it talks about the video the guy took with his phone and put online...of course it went viral.
apparently though, his video stops before the end with the explanation of why he was stopped....

the dude was stopped and asked a few questions and let go....no big
im sure that has happened to a lot of us for various reasons...

a reply to: Grovit

Either the guy's truly angry or he sees dollar bills.

I always read further because the first impression of a thread can be wrong, many times.

The cop was doing his job, the social critique is towards the institutionalize racism rampant in America.

A non-white = threat. SMH

Derek

a reply to: Grovit

If he was just stopped by the cop without the call, then I think there would be a racial profiling case. However, the dude was just responding to a 911 call. No arrest, no search, etc.

I've been stopped plenty growing up because I "matched the description". It's usually a lame excuse for a cop to stop you but it's hard to argue with.

a reply to: Cuervo

I view it this way, if the cops ignored the "suspicious character" for whatever reason, political, social or personal, that could be the person who robs or does worse to someone we know. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

a reply to: Grovit

It depends if he really did walk by the window 6 or 7 times stopping and looking in the window each time or several times.


And why didn't the cop just say that when asked why the guy was stopped instead of just "we are stopping you cause people said you are making them nervous"
Why not state the real reason for the stop that he matched the description of someone that a store owner had called about.

But either way, I think it is a non issue

a reply to: Cuervo

i agree to all that too.
pretty much feel the same way

being stopped when i was younger...for this reason or that and i felt like it was crap.
in the end, its a few minute chat then im on my way...

a call was made and it does have to be checked out.
what if the cops had not followed up on the call and this dude did wind up pulling some # at the store?

seems like the dude is trying to make an issue out of nothing....its not like he as braced and slammed on the hood...nothing at all.
a few minute convo

a reply to: Grovit

I saw that video yesterday. The cop was just doing his job by responding to a call. It is my understanding that all 911 calls have to have a response so, it's not the cops fault.

In all honesty, I think the cop handled his self very well. Even ended the encounter with a high five to prevent further escalation and tension.

The black man had every right to be upset though. Who doesn't put their hands in their pockets sometimes while walking out in the cold.

The store owner had a right to be nervous given the past break-ins and the fact that the guy walked by so many times.

I'd say overall, it played out okay. At least no one got shot or beat up.

But, I will say again that I can understand why the man was so upset by being stopped.

So.

a business owner called 911, audibly frightened, about a man who had walked by the shop six or seven times looking in the windows with his hands in his pockets.

Brandon McKean, 25, told The Huffington Post he was in the middle of walking a mile from a friend's house in Pontiac, Michigan to his own home to eat dinner around 4:30 p.m. on Thursday. The temperature had hovered around freezing that day, and he had his hands in his pockets.

If it was freezing, why walk back and forth in front of a store front?

Sounds like someone wanted a to make a fast buck in court, if the cop acted proffesionaly, and gained control over the situation, without brutality or any show of a weapon, in a civil manner, i dont see the problem. Id hate being a cop in the u.s at the moment, with public scutiny at a all time high. Not all cops are bad. Ive been stopped and searched many times, not for a valid reason, just because of how i look, but each time, they used manners, didnt man-handle me, called sir, until they knew my sir name. If its done "by the book" whats the problem?a reply to: Grovit

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?

a reply to: captaintyinknots

I agree with the storeowner, I would've felt unsafe. But yeah, things like this aren't even the tip of the iceberg. True safety can only come from the state. That's what they want us to think.

a reply to: Grovit

Context is everything huh?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I agree with the storeowner, I would've felt unsafe. But yeah, things like this aren't even the tip of the iceberg. True safety can only come from the state. That's what they want us to think.

Its fine for the store owner to be nervous.

I fail to see how that justifies stopping someone because "they had their hands in their pockets". THAT is my problem with it.

"Hands in pockets" is not even a suspect description. Anyone, at anytime, may have their hands in their pockets.

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

That borders DANGEROUSLY close to thought-crime.

a reply to: onequestion

well yes it is...
wouldnt you agree?

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...

a reply to: captaintyinknots

If the cop had gone any further then the simple questioning I would agree with you.

I do have to agree with the thought process of if some one calls 911, cops do have to respond to it.

I am kinda torn if this is just some cya from the PD, or sheriff that is, cause don't officers need to state the reason they are stopping you?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: captaintyinknots

If the cop had gone any further then the simple questioning I would agree with you.

I do have to agree with the thought process of if some one calls 911, cops do have to respond to it.

I am kinda torn if this is just some cya from the PD, or sheriff that is, cause don't officers need to state the reason they are stopping you?

Generally speaking, they do.

I fully agree about responding to 911 calls. But when that 911 call includes no crime, only concern from a citizen (which, btw, should not be a 9/11 call), I dont believe they should be doing any more than sending a car to observe the situation.

The idea of probable cause has now extended to "you were in the area where someone may have been thinking about committing a crime", and that is a VERY dangerous thing.