UC policeman charged with murder

[hunkgolden]

All I know about this case is the minute long video from the officer's bodycam. That could be all one needs to know though.

Curious what everyone else thinks about this case - except for the ends of the keyboard. Just like MSNBC, regardless of the facts of each police action shooting I think we all know where he stands on matters such as this. So no real reason for you to share your thoughts here.

One constant in these situations seems to be a complete lack of cooperation followed by defiance by the people questioned by police. I've long said that a simple traffic stop/interaction with police would remain simple if the person being questioned by the police would simply comply with the officer's requests. The video shows a fairly calm situation that escalated in a matter of seconds when the driver attempted to drive off.

Pretty obvious from the video that the officer was very calm and remained so even though the driver continually refused to offer up his driver's license after being asked repeatedly for it. I have a hard time believing a jury will find the officer guilty once the physical altercation started and the driver attempted to drive off - potentially running over the policeman or dragging him down the street under the car. Pretty easy to think that the officer was in fear of bodily harm in that situation. We shall see if the jury thinks.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

All I know about this case is the minute long video from the officer's bodycam. That could be all one needs to know though.

Curious what everyone else thinks about this case - except for the ends of the keyboard. Just like MSNBC, regardless of the facts of each police action shooting I think we all know where he stands on matters such as this. So no real reason for you to share your thoughts here.

One constant in these situations seems to be a complete lack of cooperation followed by defiance by the people questioned by police. I've long said that a simple traffic stop/interaction with police would remain simple if the person being questioned by the police would simply comply with the officer's requests. The video shows a fairly calm situation that escalated in a matter of seconds when the driver attempted to drive off.

Pretty obvious from the video that the officer was very calm and remained so even though the driver continually refused to offer up his driver's license after being asked repeatedly for it. I have a hard time believing a jury will find the officer guilty once the physical altercation started and the driver attempted to drive off - potentially running over the policeman or dragging him down the street under the car. Pretty easy to think that the officer was in fear of bodily harm in that situation. We shall see if the jury thinks.

You may well be right, but I know that the article I read suggested that the "dragging" happened after the victim was already dead.

In general, I think that police involved shootings should almost always go to trial, if for no other reason than that it is harder to make a persuasive case that 12 average citizens are all biased than it is to make a persuasive case that the DA or PD are biased.

 

[qazplm]

You may well be right, but I know that the article I read suggested that the "dragging" happened after the victim was already dead.

In general, I think that police involved shootings should almost always go to trial, if for no other reason than that it is harder to make a persuasive case that 12 average citizens are all biased than it is to make a persuasive case that the DA or PD are biased.

Don't confuse him with details. It wasn't just the article you read, it's clear in the video. There was no "dragging."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/2...river-during-traffic-stop-indicted-on-murder/
(not MSNBC)

http://on.aol.com/video/cincinnati-police-chief--justice-was-served-518977709

(police chief: justice was served)

But yeah, "ends of the keyboard" "MSNBC" clearly it's just us.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

... a complete lack of cooperation followed by defiance by the people questioned by police. I've long said that a simple traffic stop/interaction with police would remain simple if the person being questioned by the police would simply comply with the officer's requests. The video shows a fairly calm situation that escalated in a matter of seconds when the driver attempted to drive off.

Pretty obvious from the video that the officer was very calm and remained so even though the driver continually refused to offer up his driver's license after being asked repeatedly for it. I have a hard time believing a jury will find the officer guilty once the physical altercation started and the driver attempted to drive off - potentially running over the policeman or dragging him down the street under the car. Pretty easy to think that the officer was in fear of bodily harm in that situation. We shall see if the jury thinks.

Complete lack of cooperation? Not exactly. He answered all of the questions calmly, even admitting he didn't have his license on him. He obviously had questions as to why he had to get out of the car, and pulled the car door closed. The cop tried to open the door, then reached in the car for who knows what reason, and then shot the driver in the head from point blank range.

Completely unnecessary. Unless they found a gun on the passenger seat, that officer will probably - and rightly from what I can tell - be found guilty of murder. He was not in danger in any way, shape or form. The only dragging I saw happened after the shot was discharged and the car continued about 100yds down the road. So unless you can make that kind of action when you're dead, the suspect didn't drag the officer intentionally using his car as a deadly weapon.

The proper action for a guy driving without a front license plate mounted (I do this in California and have for five years... GASP!), and suspected of driving on a suspended license would be - get this - take your left arm out of the car, return to your car, and pursue the suspect. The proper action in this case is NOT - shoot suspect in the head at point blank with your service weapon.

 

[Jedifick]

This cop is going to prison. After he shot you could hear him say, "i thought he was going to run me over." Really? You were standing beside the car, was he going to flip a 180 and come back after you? The guy was acting flighty as all get out, probably because he was driving illegally and might have been high, but if youre going to carry and pull a loaded weapon, know how to use it. Enjoy prison.

 

[kescwi]

All I know about this case is the minute long video from the officer's bodycam. That could be all one needs to know though.

Curious what everyone else thinks about this case - except for the ends of the keyboard. Just like MSNBC, regardless of the facts of each police action shooting I think we all know where he stands on matters such as this. So no real reason for you to share your thoughts here.

One constant in these situations seems to be a complete lack of cooperation followed by defiance by the people questioned by police. I've long said that a simple traffic stop/interaction with police would remain simple if the person being questioned by the police would simply comply with the officer's requests. The video shows a fairly calm situation that escalated in a matter of seconds when the driver attempted to drive off.

Pretty obvious from the video that the officer was very calm and remained so even though the driver continually refused to offer up his driver's license after being asked repeatedly for it. I have a hard time believing a jury will find the officer guilty once the physical altercation started and the driver attempted to drive off - potentially running over the policeman or dragging him down the street under the car. Pretty easy to think that the officer was in fear of bodily harm in that situation. We shall see if the jury thinks.

Ha really, you accuse a poster and TV channel of only seeing things one way but then write about the "one constant in these..." and again, feel the dead AA is at fault... Oh my

 

[qazplm]

Ha really, you accuse a poster and TV channel of only seeing things one way but then write about the "one constant in these..." and again, feel the dead AA is at fault... Oh my

I didn't bother posting about this for two reasons:

1. No one not already convinced about the larger issues at play was not going to be convinced by this incident.
2. No one would seriously challenge this as a bad decision by the officer.

Then Hunk comes along.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

"No one" is a strong term... there's always one.

 

[timster]

Saw this on the News other day and immediately thought "Why do you shoot another human being for something so trivial"
I don't think I would have got out of the car either based on how the conversation escalated and I'm not a minority
Like another poster said, let him go, get in your squad car, call in the situation, request assistance and pursue
Senseless

 

[atmafola]

One constant in these situations seems to be a complete lack of cooperation followed by defiance by the people questioned by police. I've long said that a simple traffic stop/interaction with police would remain simple if the person being questioned by the police would simply comply with the officer's requests. The video shows a fairly calm situation that escalated in a matter of seconds when the driver attempted to drive off.
.

Perhaps simple traffic stop would remain simple
1. if police quit lying about reasons i was stopped. (that lafayette cop that said i failed to use the yurn signal when i saw you in my back and definitely made sure I did)
2. quit stopping some people for bogus reasons (eg the one that stopped me at the light for "hessitation to go when light turned green" or the one in lafayette, IN that never even could come up with the reason why i was stopped and threatened me with arrest for daring to ask, but of course he wanted to search my car)
3. stop performing illegal searches. being black is not reasonable suspicion. (my person and car were searched no fewer than 5 times in my 20's all on bogus reasons too. one in maryland even had the temerity to search washer fluid under the engine hood. i have never even physically touched weed once in my life talk less of using/having any contrband). come to think of it, i don't remember any legit stop (speeding, rolling stop) ever resulted in my car being searched.
4. quit getting in pissing contests with beligerant motorists. Its not about your ego, Mr officer. Do your job, be professional, issue the ticket and be on your way. If the idiotic motorist wanna keep yapping his or her uncouth mouth, that's not a crime,let the person be.
5. don't tail me for 3 miles, turning everywhere I turn looking for an opportunity to stop me. That's not policing, that's stalking. (yup that Westfield police man that followed me from US31 all the way my parent house on 169th and gray, and then waited 5 more minutes outside my parents driveway)
6. Deescalation is not cowardice and politeness is not a weakness. Those are 2 tools that in the long run keep you and the persons you interact with safer. (that's to you that Westfield cop who pulled me over for doing a 40 on 30 but was polite and professional throughout the stop. thumbs up)
7. it's not normal human behavior to immediately go limp when a couple (or more) of men suddenly accost you without warning or reason. the natural response is to tense your muscles up. that tensing up is not reason for you to escalate use of force or beat me black and blue. (that's for you that IMPD officer who nearly arm twisted my arm out of its socket for being guilty of trying to explain myself when he apparetly wanted me to keep quiet)
8. I would like to reserve my deepest fears for when actual criminals attack me and want to hurt me. Instead, the first, second, and third times I have been most afraid (as in genuinely fearful for my life or my future) have all involved ineractions with the police.

And no, I am no criminal. I have had my share of driving offenses in my younger years, mostly speeding (no more than 10mph over limit) and one rolling stop. I have two degrees in engr from Purdue and an MD from Yale

 

[qazplm]

Perhaps simple traffic stop would remain simple
1. if police quit lying about reasons i was stopped. (that lafayette cop that said i failed to use the yurn signal when i saw you in my back and definitely made sure I did)
2. quit stopping some people for bogus reasons (eg the one that stopped me at the light for "hessitation to go when light turned green" or the one in lafayette, IN that never even could come up with the reason why i was stopped and threatened me with arrest for daring to ask, but of course he wanted to search my car)
3. stop performing illegal searches. being black is not reasonable suspicion. (my person and car were searched no fewer than 5 times in my 20's all on bogus reasons too. one in maryland even had the temerity to search washer fluid under the engine hood. i have never even physically touched weed once in my life talk less of using/having any contrband). come to think of it, i don't remember any legit stop (speeding, rolling stop) ever resulted in my car being searched.
4. quit getting in pissing contests with beligerant motorists. Its not about your ego, Mr officer. Do your job, be professional, issue the ticket and be on your way. If the idiotic motorist wanna keep yapping his or her uncouth mouth, that's not a crime,let the person be.
5. don't tail me for 3 miles, turning everywhere I turn looking for an opportunity to stop me. That's not policing, that's stalking. (yup that Westfield police man that followed me from US31 all the way my parent house on 169th and gray, and then waited 5 more minutes outside my parents driveway)
6. Deescalation is not cowardice and politeness is not a crime. those are 2 tools that in the long run keep your and the persons you interact with safer. (thats to you that Westfield cop who pulled me over for doing a 40 on 30 but was polite and professional throughout the stop. thumbs up)
7. it's not normal human behavior to immediately go limp when a couple (or more) of men suddenly accost you without warning or reason. the natural response is to tense your muscles up. that tensing up is not reason for you to escalate use of force or beat e black and blue. (thats for you that IMPD officer who nearly arm twisted my arm out of its socket for being guilty of trying to explain myself when he apparetly wanted me to keep quiet)
8. I would like to reserve my deepest fears for when actual criminals attack me and want to hurt me. Instead, the first, second, and third times I have been most afraid (as in genuinely fearful for my life or my future) have all involved ineractions with the police.

And no, I am no criminal. I have had my share of driving offenses in my younger years, mostly speeding (no more than 10mph over limit) and one rolling stop. I have two degrees in engr from Purdue and an MD from Yale

I was once pulled over on the way back from El Paso to Fort Hood. I was a young SGT about to get out and I was registering for my last two years of college. They came from the other side of the highway, sat in front of me for about five miles, looking back at me the entire time. They pulled me over. They asked me what I was doing. I told them, and showed them my military ID, my school registration materials, and my rental agreement. They then asked to search my car. Being a black man in West Texas I said sure. They found nothing. They said have a nice day.

They never once told me why I was stopped. Not speeding, no improper anything. Just a brown skin in West Texas. I'm sure Hunk things that's no big deal. And I bet if I'd protested what was clearly a profiling stop, he'd have said I should have just complied, because after all, if your rights are violated, that's no reason to get upset or question the police, just comply.

 

[qazplm]

Perhaps simple traffic stop would remain simple
1. if police quit lying about reasons i was stopped. (that lafayette cop that said i failed to use the yurn signal when i saw you in my back and definitely made sure I did)
2. quit stopping some people for bogus reasons (eg the one that stopped me at the light for "hessitation to go when light turned green" or the one in lafayette, IN that never even could come up with the reason why i was stopped and threatened me with arrest for daring to ask, but of course he wanted to search my car)
3. stop performing illegal searches. being black is not reasonable suspicion. (my person and car were searched no fewer than 5 times in my 20's all on bogus reasons too. one in maryland even had the temerity to search washer fluid under the engine hood. i have never even physically touched weed once in my life talk less of using/having any contrband). come to think of it, i don't remember any legit stop (speeding, rolling stop) ever resulted in my car being searched.
4. quit getting in pissing contests with beligerant motorists. Its not about your ego, Mr officer. Do your job, be professional, issue the ticket and be on your way. If the idiotic motorist wanna keep yapping his or her uncouth mouth, that's not a crime,let the person be.
5. don't tail me for 3 miles, turning everywhere I turn looking for an opportunity to stop me. That's not policing, that's stalking. (yup that Westfield police man that followed me from US31 all the way my parent house on 169th and gray, and then waited 5 more minutes outside my parents driveway)
6. Deescalation is not cowardice and politeness is not a crime. those are 2 tools that in the long run keep your and the persons you interact with safer. (thats to you that Westfield cop who pulled me over for doing a 40 on 30 but was polite and professional throughout the stop. thumbs up)
7. it's not normal human behavior to immediately go limp when a couple (or more) of men suddenly accost you without warning or reason. the natural response is to tense your muscles up. that tensing up is not reason for you to escalate use of force or beat e black and blue. (thats for you that IMPD officer who nearly arm twisted my arm out of its socket for being guilty of trying to explain myself when he apparetly wanted me to keep quiet)
8. I would like to reserve my deepest fears for when actual criminals attack me and want to hurt me. Instead, the first, second, and third times I have been most afraid (as in genuinely fearful for my life or my future) have all involved ineractions with the police.

And no, I am no criminal. I have had my share of driving offenses in my younger years, mostly speeding (no more than 10mph over limit) and one rolling stop. I have two degrees in engr from Purdue and an MD from Yale

First of all, if you don't comply then you deserve what you get.
Second, you know statistically you are probably guilty of something anyways, so of course the cop followed you.
Third, you were probably doing something wrong.
Fourth, all those incidents were in no way part of a larger pattern, and if they were, it's not the cops, it's you.
Fifth, comply.

I think I covered them all.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Also, white guilt.

 

[BoilerJS]

Also, white guilt.

I am a white male and have been stopped a number of times, also for no reason. Twice by black officers. I was not ticketed any of these times because I was doing nothing wrong. I think it has more to do with age and gender than race. In the case in question the officer most definitely messed up. I'd guess manslaughter not murder. He didn't stop this young man with the intent to kill him.
The other media frenzy with regard to the young woman who was said to commit suicide. IMO this case is complete bull. She was supposedly pulled over for a minor traffic violation? Well after three days to sober up she still had enough THC in her system to be charged for driving illegally in Colorado. If this was alcohol, after three days she still would have tested a 1.5. Tragic death but why get the FBI or DOJ involved for Pete sake. I think the family is out for some quick cash.

 

[qazplm]

I am a white male and have been stopped a number of times, also for no reason. Twice by black officers. I was not ticketed any of these times because I was doing nothing wrong. I think it has more to do with age and gender than race. In the case in question the officer most definitely messed up. I'd guess manslaughter not murder. He didn't stop this young man with the intent to kill him.
The other media frenzy with regard to the young woman who was said to commit suicide. IMO this case is complete bull. She was supposedly pulled over for a minor traffic violation? Well after three days to sober up she still had enough THC in her system to be charged for driving illegally in Colorado. If this was alcohol, after three days she still would have tested a 1.5. Tragic death but why get the FBI or DOJ involved for Pete sake. I think the family is out for some quick cash.

Do you really think, that whites and blacks are all stopped the same, no difference not a shred of issue there between the two? Cops just equally, and randomly stop folks for no reason with no regard to race?

https://www.facebook.com/peter.jarrettschell/posts/10153568341817146

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Do you really think, that whites and blacks are all stopped the same, no difference not a shred of issue there between the two? Cops just equally, and randomly stop folks for no reason with no regard to race?

No I do not. As "chickenshit" a traffic stop as the UC incident was, the driver was still in violation of two laws - no front plate and then driving without his license. Was he stopped because he was black? Maybe. Maybe the cop profiled. Would a white guy get stopped for the same reason? Maybe not.

But his general premise is correct: had the gentleman had his front plate mounted, he probably wouldn't have been stopped.

You already know how I feel about this specific incident, so no need to "go there", but I don't agree with you that cops everywhere are just out there targeting black people for DWB with regularity. I do know you believe it's happened to you in Texas (I think) and it probably did, thus I will not go so far as to say it never happens, and I will say that I've driven for five years in CA without a front plate and never been stopped. Take that FWIW. I believe that INDIVIDUALS who happen to be policemen may target for DWB. I do not believe "cops" do.

This is akin to people who rip "cyclists" for disregarding traffic laws. No, many of us do not... probably the large majority of us do not disregard traffic laws... but there are always individuals...

 

[qazplm]

No I do not. As "chickenshit" a traffic stop as the UC incident was, the driver was still in violation of two laws - no front plate and then driving without his license. Was he stopped because he was black? Maybe. Maybe the cop profiled. Would a white guy get stopped for the same reason? Maybe not.

But his general premise is correct: had the gentleman had his front plate mounted, he probably wouldn't have been stopped.

You already know how I feel about this specific incident, so no need to "go there", but I don't agree with you that cops everywhere are just out there targeting black people for DWB with regularity. I do know you believe it's happened to you in Texas (I think) and it probably did, thus I will not go so far as to say it never happens, and I will say that I've driven for five years in CA without a front plate and never been stopped. Take that FWIW. I believe that INDIVIDUALS who happen to be policemen may target for DWB. I do not believe "cops" do.

This is akin to people who rip "cyclists" for disregarding traffic laws. No, many of us do not... probably the large majority of us do not disregard traffic laws... but there are always individuals...

1. My understanding is that you cannot stop someone just for not having a front plate under the laws of where this happened. I could be wrong, or rather what I read could be wrong, I haven't gone to check it. So, I don't know if that was a reason to stop. And he wouldn't know he was driving without a license unless he stopped him in the first place, so it's bootstrapping. Regardless, the odds are pretty high he was stopped because of race. And you say if he had his front plate mounted as if this guy wouldn't have found some other reason to stop him. An "improper" lane change or a "failure" to signal.

2. I never said "cops everywhere are just out there targeting black people" but yes there are enough, and it happens regularly enough that it's an issue. My response was to BJS and people like him who seem to believe it's not an issue at all. You seem to want to make it a very rare thing. It isn't. it does happen regularly. that's not "every cop does it." I don't think it makes much of a difference to me whether the two folks who pulled me over for no reasons were "individuals who happen to be policemen" or "cops" since they both wear the same uniforms, have the same power, and carry the same weaponry. I'm just as dead either way if something goes South, and my rights are just as violated whichever quotation you use.

This is a problem. It's not just a few bad apples. It's not all of them either. But it's more than you appear to want to admit.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

1. My understanding is that you cannot stop someone just for not having a front plate under the laws of where this happened. I could be wrong, or rather what I read could be wrong, I haven't gone to check it. So, I don't know if that was a reason to stop. And he wouldn't know he was driving without a license unless he stopped him in the first place, so it's bootstrapping. Regardless, the odds are pretty high he was stopped because of race. And you say if he had his front plate mounted as if this guy wouldn't have found some other reason to stop him. An "improper" lane change or a "failure" to signal.

2. I never said "cops everywhere are just out there targeting black people" but yes there are enough, and it happens regularly enough that it's an issue. My response was to BJS and people like him who seem to believe it's not an issue at all. You seem to want to make it a very rare thing. It isn't. it does happen regularly. that's not "every cop does it." I don't think it makes much of a difference to me whether the two folks who pulled me over for no reasons were "individuals who happen to be policemen" or "cops" since they both wear the same uniforms, have the same power, and carry the same weaponry. I'm just as dead either way if something goes South, and my rights are just as violated whichever quotation you use.

... But it's more than you appear to want to admit.

1. You've made some really broad leaps there I'm not willing to make. A simple google search shows many states and much anecdotal evidence of folks being pulled over in Texas, California, and several other states for driving without a front plate.

2. I never said very rare. I also don't think it's widespread like every, most, a large majority, or even a majority of cops are running around saying "I'ma get me a blackie tuhday!" It could be a large number, but 10% of cops everywhere is a large number, and is undoubtedly larger in certain cities and parts of the country than it is in others.

I don't know how you know what I want to admit. I know that you often like to make assumptions about what I think. I think it happens. I don't think it happens to every black person. I don't think it happens in every municipality. I think it probably happens to some extent greater than very rare but less than widespread (unless you're talking geographically).

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Edmunds.com lists this as the number four reason people get pulled over:

4. Equipment violations. Everyone knows the movie scene where a cop smashes a taillight to justify a traffic stop. But in real life, there's little need for that, our experts say. People commit a multitude of code violations all on their own. Leading the list are heavily tinted windows, burned-out headlights, broken windshields, expired tags, the lack of a front license plate (in California and some other states) and loud exhaust modifications.

The state of Ohio requires both a front and rear plate displayed - it is not a county option. The fine for such a citation can be for up to $500.

 

[qazplm]

1. You've made some really broad leaps there I'm not willing to make. A simple google search shows many states and much anecdotal evidence of folks being pulled over in Texas, California, and several other states for driving without a front plate.

2. I never said very rare. I also don't think it's widespread like every, most, a large majority, or even a majority of cops are running around saying "I'ma get me a blackie tuhday!" It could be a large number, but 10% of cops everywhere is a large number, and is undoubtedly larger in certain cities and parts of the country than it is in others.

I don't know how you know what I want to admit. I know that you often like to make assumptions about what I think. I think it happens. I don't think it happens to every black person. I don't think it happens in every municipality. I think it probably happens to some extent greater than very rare but less than widespread (unless you're talking geographically).

1. I didn't make a broad leap. I said that I'd read somewhere else, I can't remember where now, that in that particular jurisdiction, it wasn't actually a reason to pull someone over. We know this wasn't a city cop, but a university cop, so it's certainly possible he didn't know the law, as well as ignored it. Now, what I read could be wrong, but that's not a broad leap. Having a front license plate isn't universal, and every state doesn't have the same laws on what is and isn't a stoppable offense, heck it can change within a state.

2. No one has said "a majority." No one. No one says "it happens to every black person." It absolutely happens in every municipality. It absolutely happens often enough to be a problem that needs to be addressed. [And let me edit, no one on here has said that, and no one of import has. I'm sure somewhere, if you do a google search someone has said it, just like I'm sure you can find someone who says we didn't land on the moon.]

 

[gr8indoorsman]

1. Your broad leap was, "the odds are pretty high he was stopped because of race." You can't remotely prove that. He was, in fact, in violation of a law. I doubt he was the first black guy that drove by that cop on that day. The odds are pretty high that he was not.

2. I agree - it happens enough it should be addressed, and I am sure it is addressed by some police institutions out there. I just doubt you're ever going to ferret out every individual. It's not possible.

 

[qazplm]

1. Your broad leap was, "the odds are pretty high he was stopped because of race." You can't remotely prove that. He was, in fact, in violation of a law. I doubt he was the first black guy that drove by that cop on that day. The odds are pretty high that he was not.

2. I agree - it happens enough it should be addressed, and I am sure it is addressed by some police institutions out there. I just doubt you're ever going to ferret out every individual. It's not possible.

I can't prove it to you, that's certainly true. So is it more likely race was a factor or not to you? You have a major blind spot here quite frankly because you haven't had to experience it, watch your loved ones experience it, hear about friends experience it...

He was "in violation of a law." Again, just because a law is listed on the books does not mean it's something you can stop folks for. You are conflating two different things. Second of all, you've already cited "he didn't have his license" as a reason to pull him over, when the cop doesn't know that until after pulling him over. He may very well have pulled other folks over. So what? The fact that he pulled other folks over for legitimate (although we don't know) reasons does not remove the fact that this stop was ridiculous and that the shooting was ridiculous. it doesn't remove the profiling that likely happened. You apparently need the guy to have a website that says I love the Klan and i hate black people before you'll agree that there is proof it was "highly likely" it was a racist motivated stop. Check the link I sent above. That person was stopped for being "in violation of the law" He was also stopped because he was a white guy in a car full of black people.

No one said anything about "ferreting out every individual" but that's what someone says when they barely want to admit it's a large problem that needs to be addressed as if we are "this close" to making it a nonconsequential "you can't stop it completely" problem that just needs a few tweaks.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So is it more likely race was a factor or not to you?

He was "in violation of a law." Again, just because a law is listed on the books does not mean it's something you can stop folks for. You are conflating two different things. Second of all, you've already cited "he didn't have his license" as a reason to pull him over, when the cop doesn't know that until after pulling him over.

No one said anything about "ferreting out every individual" but that's what someone says when they barely want to admit it's a large problem that needs to be addressed as if we are "this close" to making it a nonconsequential "you can't stop it completely" problem that just needs a few tweaks.

I think race was likely a factor in the shooting. In the initial stop? I doubt it. I think he stopped him because he didn't have a front plate, not because he was DWB.

At no point did I say he was stopped for driving without a license. That's the second time you brought that up, but no one ever said he was stopped for not having a license. He was stopped for not having a front plate. As I pointed out last night, in the state of Ohio, there is plenty of anecodotal evidence saying that you can absolutely be stopped for that, just like in California and Texas. The fine in Ohio is up to $500. Edmunds lists "no front plate" among the equipment violations that cause frequent stops. Take that FWIW.

It's not "nonconsequential" obviously. That said, what do you propose to stop it? Training? I'm quite sure there's training going on in most places. Cameras? Didn't help here, but I think that's the best solution because then you know Daddy's watching and there can be repercussions. While it didn't prevent the shooting, it will likely (and should, IMO) lead to the conviction of this cop. I hope that properly convicting a cop in one of these incidents makes them think twice. I doubt it impacts DWB because I don't think anyone believes they're going to shoot someone during a traffic stop... I don't know.

Had this cop not shot the driver, do you think anything would've or should've come of this story? Do you think there would've been grounds for a civil lawsuit that the cop violated the driver's rights by pulling him over? He was in violation of a law, no matter how trivial it is (and it is), so good luck making that case.

 

[qazplm]

I think race was likely a factor in the shooting. In the initial stop? I doubt it. I think he stopped him because he didn't have a front plate, not because he was DWB.

At no point did I say he was stopped for driving without a license. That's the second time you brought that up, but no one ever said he was stopped for not having a license. He was stopped for not having a front plate. As I pointed out last night, in the state of Ohio, there is plenty of anecodotal evidence saying that you can absolutely be stopped for that, just like in California and Texas. The fine in Ohio is up to $500. Edmunds lists "no front plate" among the equipment violations that cause frequent stops. Take that FWIW.

It's not "nonconsequential" obviously. That said, what do you propose to stop it? Training? I'm quite sure there's training going on in most places. Cameras? Didn't help here, but I think that's the best solution because then you know Daddy's watching and there can be repercussions. While it didn't prevent the shooting, it will likely (and should, IMO) lead to the conviction of this cop. I hope that properly convicting a cop in one of these incidents makes them think twice. I doubt it impacts DWB because I don't think anyone believes they're going to shoot someone during a traffic stop... I don't know.

Had this cop not shot the driver, do you think anything would've or should've come of this story? Do you think there would've been grounds for a civil lawsuit that the cop violated the driver's rights by pulling him over? He was in violation of a law, no matter how trivial it is (and it is), so good luck making that case.

1. It's not going to stop so long as the VAST majority of cops can't even be indicted or indictments are not even sought in these shootings. Things stop because there are real consequences. Right now, there aren't a whole lot.

2. It's not going to stop so long as people bend over so far backwards to come up with excuses for the officers that don't even allow for the possibility of consequences.

3. It's not going to stop so long as we refuse to understand that black and brown drivers ARE being STOPPED in a way that white drivers are not in many places. That you refuse to accept or believe that yes he was stopped because he was black is indicative of this problem.

4. It's not going to stop so long as folks keep believing that there are tiered rights. That is, someone like me who has never been in trouble with the law other than a few tickets (and even that will absolutely be brought up in some future incident) somehow gets more rights/outrage at being stopped or searched or even shot, vice someone who "has a record." As if the latter has a lowered expectation that police should respect their rights.

Bottom line: Police are public servants, we don't serve them, they serve us. That credo isn't remotely being followed in a lot of places, particularly minority areas. And guess what, if police followed that credo and took that approach, and treated everyone equally THEN come talk to me about "black crime" or other issues in the community. Otherwise, it's yelling clean up your room as you wade through a living covered in garbage.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

1. It's not going to stop so long as the VAST majority of cops can't even be indicted or indictments are not even sought in these shootings. Things stop because there are real consequences. Right now, there aren't a whole lot.

2. It's not going to stop so long as people bend over so far backwards to come up with excuses for the officers that don't even allow for the possibility of consequences.

3. It's not going to stop so long as we refuse to understand that black and brown drivers ARE being STOPPED in a way that white drivers are not in many places. That you refuse to accept or believe that yes he was stopped because he was black is indicative of this problem.

4. It's not going to stop so long as folks keep believing that there are tiered rights. That is, someone like me who has never been in trouble with the law other than a few tickets (and even that will absolutely be brought up in some future incident) somehow gets more rights/outrage at being stopped or searched or even shot, vice someone who "has a record." As if the latter has a lowered expectation that police should respect their rights.

Bottom line: Police are public servants, we don't serve them, they serve us. That credo isn't remotely being followed in a lot of places, particularly minority areas. And guess what, if police followed that credo and took that approach, and treated everyone equally THEN come talk to me about "black crime" or other issues in the community. Otherwise, it's yelling clean up your room as you wade through a living covered in garbage.

1. I agree. I think cameras help, at least they should. Hopefully this case helps bear that out.

2. I agree.

3. I refuse to accept or believe that as a fact IN THIS CASE, that is true. You can't remotely prove it; it is your perception IN THIS CASE. If he hadn't had an equipment violation on his car, I would more readily accept that race was the reason he was stopped. As it stands, it is a chicken-shit traffic stop, but one that is lawful. But no, you're right, I do utterly reject the fact that he stopped this particular individual solely because he is black. He was stopped for not having a front plate, and happens to be black.

This does not mean that it never or very rarely happens - again, words you're putting into my mouth - I acknowledge that it does and that it happens too much. But in this case? Nope. I do not buy it because the driver even acknowledged the infraction himself.

4. Tiered rights? Absolutely not - totally inappropriate. Tiered expectations? Yep. If I check your plate and see a few moving violations, I'm thinking, "routine stop". If I check your plates and that the registrant has a history of drug offenses or other non-violent offenses, I'm probably thinking "routine stop, but maybe I'll ask a few more questions." If I run the tags and see "stolen vehicle" or that the registrant is a parolee for a violent crime, yeah, I'm probably a little bit more assertive, alert, and "jumpy" because I also have a right to defend myself. In none of those situations did I violate anyone's rights, but my response to you and my response to a repeat offender of some other variety are going to be different. By the way, that would apply if the registrant were white, black, chinese, dog, koala, or bacteria.

I hope your last paragraph made you feel better, because I'm sure as hell not certain why you think it needed to be directed at me.

But you avoided my last question because you know the answer doesn't support your emotional argument:

Had this cop not shot the driver, do you think anything would've or should've come of this story? Do you think there would've been grounds for a civil lawsuit that the cop violated the driver's rights by pulling him over?

The emotional problem you can't get around is that there is a distinction between "this shooting is egregiously awful and likely warrants conviction for murder" and "this traffic stop is egregiously awful." One of those statements is true, the other is not. The officer could've written this gentleman a citation and would've been right to do so. Until you acknowledge that, you're too overcome by emotion to continue discourse.

 

[qazplm]

1. I agree. I think cameras help, at least they should. Hopefully this case helps bear that out.

2. I agree.

3. I refuse to accept or believe that as a fact IN THIS CASE, that is true. You can't remotely prove it; it is your perception IN THIS CASE. If he hadn't had an equipment violation on his car, I would more readily accept that race was the reason he was stopped. As it stands, it is a chicken-shit traffic stop, but one that is lawful. But no, you're right, I do utterly reject the fact that he stopped this particular individual solely because he is black. He was stopped for not having a front plate, and happens to be black.

This does not mean that it never or very rarely happens - again, words you're putting into my mouth - I acknowledge that it does and that it happens too much. But in this case? Nope. I do not buy it because the driver even acknowledged the infraction himself.

4. Tiered rights? Absolutely not - totally inappropriate. Tiered expectations? Yep. If I check your plate and see a few moving violations, I'm thinking, "routine stop". If I check your plates and that the registrant has a history of drug offenses or other non-violent offenses, I'm probably thinking "routine stop, but maybe I'll ask a few more questions." If I run the tags and see "stolen vehicle" or that the registrant is a parolee for a violent crime, yeah, I'm probably a little bit more assertive, alert, and "jumpy" because I also have a right to defend myself. In none of those situations did I violate anyone's rights, but my response to you and my response to a repeat offender of some other variety are going to be different. By the way, that would apply if the registrant were white, black, chinese, dog, koala, or bacteria.

I hope your last paragraph made you feel better, because I'm sure as hell not certain why you think it needed to be directed at me.

But you avoided my last question because you know the answer doesn't support your emotional argument:


The emotional problem you can't get around is that there is a distinction between "this shooting is egregiously awful and likely warrants conviction for murder" and "this traffic stop is egregiously awful." One of those statements is true, the other is not. The officer could've written this gentleman a citation and would've been right to do so. Until you acknowledge that, you're too overcome by emotion to continue discourse.

I didn't "avoid" anything. I am posting at work when there's a break I don't have time to address every point you have.

The fact that you think this is "too emotional" is just plain silly. It is not "too emotional" but I know you want to use that to reject the points being made, because you reject the reality that these stops in fact are happening because of the race of the people involved.

Due process is also about no selective enforcement of laws. You seem to think: well, he technically violated a law, so we are done here. No, we are not. If you stop one group of folks for that technical violation routinely but you don't stop another group of folks for that technical violation routinely, that's selective enforcement of the law...and it's wrong. So no, if he's stopping a black man for a violation he doesn't stop a white man for, then he WOULD NOT have been right to do so.

But of course you are so adamant that didn't happen in this case, because he was violating the law, which is a circular logic do-loop that renders you unable to move past to what I've just laid out.

The problem with your tiered rights/expectations argument is that you are assuming the stop was just fine, and then working backwards with hindsight to reinforce it. When i was stopped and searched for drugs, there was no reason for it. No PC, no reasonable suspicion other than the color of my skin. That they could have found drugs doesn't change that one bit.

But like I said, your adamant all bold in this case qualifier is based on logical do-loop that doesn't make sense, so you've got your own emotional blinders that prevent real discourse.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

As I've said 400 times in this thread: yep, the stop was fine. The driver did not have his front license plate posted, thus the stop was legal. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating it outright. Do you know that he's never stopped a white man for not having a front plate? Or do you know that he's stopped some large percentage of black people but let the white people slide? It's altogether possible that he would've let this gentleman off with a warning about his plate had he presented a driver's license and been entirely compliant, just as he presumably would have if he'd pulled me over for the same infraction. Neither of us KNOWS. You're making assumptions you can't possibly back up except with your own emotions and anecdotes. I'm sorry that I'm not going to make that leap with you without proof.

My bold, italics, underline is not emotional, it's for emphasis. You have a tendency to take my statements relating to one thing and extrapolate them to my feelings on all things. You've done it in this thread. What reason do I have to be emotional here? As you said, I and my family and friends don't deal with this. You have emotional blinders; I have blinders caused by ignorance.

And again, I'm not defending his actions - he's a murderer as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not willing to label him a racist cop murderer without a little more evidence than your perceptions. If you don't approve, well, that's fine!

 

[qazplm]

As I've said 400 times in this thread: yep, the stop was fine. The driver did not have his front license plate posted, thus the stop was legal. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating it outright. Do you know that he's never stopped a white man for not having a front plate? Or do you know that he's stopped some large percentage of black people but let the white people slide? It's altogether possible that he would've let this gentleman off with a warning about his plate had he presented a driver's license and been entirely compliant, just as he presumably would have if he'd pulled me over for the same infraction. Neither of us KNOWS. You're making assumptions you can't possibly back up except with your own emotions and anecdotes. I'm sorry that I'm not going to make that leap with you without proof.

My bold, italics, underline is not emotional, it's for emphasis. You have a tendency to take my statements relating to one thing and extrapolate them to my feelings on all things. You've done it in this thread. What reason do I have to be emotional here? As you said, I and my family and friends don't deal with this. You have emotional blinders; I have blinders caused by ignorance.

And again, I'm not defending his actions - he's a murderer as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not willing to label him a racist cop murderer without a little more evidence than your perceptions. If you don't approve, well, that's fine!

And you've been wrong 400 times because you look at it through a simplistic one way or the other view. It's not legal if it's selectively done. Like I said, you won't believe it unless there's video evidence that he's never, ever stopped a white person for it. Emotion and anecdotes? lol There are plenty of studies out there that show that minorities are pulled over more than whites for "infractions," that they are searched more for drugs in spite of the fact that blacks and hispanics do not use at any greater rate than whites. There is all sorts of information out there if you spent even a fraction of your time looking that support the fact that cops often profile and stop and pull over people based solely on race.

Of course you aren't going to make the leap, and of course you are going to try and discredit me with "emotional" because it doesn't touch your world, and you quite frankly don't consider it enough of a problem in your world to get informed on what people actually have spent time studying and researching.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18383182/...rivers-fare-worse-traffic-stops/#.VcLbdPmt-X8
http://www.kmbc.com/news/ku-study-find-blacks-more-often-pulled-over-than-whites/24704134
http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/acl...cle_c8e7f722-2d2c-11e4-ad84-001a4bcf6878.html
http://www.courant.com/opinion/edit...-profiling-unclear-in-stu-20140915-story.html
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/06/missouri_traffic_stops_disparity_blacks_higher.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

That took 30 seconds, and those aren't even the major studies. There are tons of them.
But yeah, you'll stick by how this was a fine stop because you need absolute proof that a guy who shot a black man at the first possible provocation might have just a wee bit of racism in him that might cause him to be more likely to have pulled the guy over in the first place.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I have acknowledged that possibility. I do not accept it as fact nor will I until proven. Sorry (not sorry).

Otherwise, yes, you are very clearly too emotional about this subject to have a rational discussion. You keep making arguments against me that I'm not even arguing. You're off the reservation, and we're done!

 

[qazplm]

I have acknowledged that possibility. I do not accept it as fact nor will I until proven. Sorry (not sorry).

Otherwise, yes, you are very clearly too emotional about this subject to have a rational discussion. You keep making arguments against me that I'm not even arguing. You're off the reservation, and we're done!

That's an emotional response.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

At least it's on topic, and not trying to pick a fight about DWB all over the country!

 

[qazplm]

At least it's on topic, and not trying to pick a fight about DWB all over the country!

There's no fight to pick, it's a reality. I gave plenty of links there are tons more.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

And I've acknowledge half a dozen times that it happens, so WTF do you feel the need to continue to post links? You can't prove it to be the case in this UC case - that's the crux of it. You think because it happens a lot, that was the case here. I'm not willing to make that leap, yet have acknowledged it as a possibility. This isn't difficult to grasp, good grief!

It's like you're so desperate for interaction you pick fights that aren't even there, and then flaunt your imaginary victory over no one!

 

[qazplm]

And I've acknowledge half a dozen times that it happens, so WTF do you feel the need to continue to post links? You can't prove it to be the case in this UC case - that's the crux of it. You think because it happens a lot, that was the case here. I'm not willing to make that leap, yet have acknowledged it as a possibility. This isn't difficult to grasp, good grief!

It's like you're so desperate for interaction you pick fights that aren't even there, and then flaunt your imaginary victory over no one!

Emotional.
The fact that "it happens" is not the same thing as recognizing it happens a wee bit more than occassionally, it happens, in fact, "a lot." I don't remember very many of these where you've said, yeah, race was involved in that stop. The level of proof you appear to need is indicative of the fact that "not yet" are you ready to believe that this happens "a lot."

And that's the blindness on your part. Because if it happens "a lot" as opposed to "it happens" then it's a significant problem as opposed to something to just watch out for.