Baltimore protests

[jusanothajoe]

Could be a little "culture disconnect".

I am from a small town in Northern WI.  I have zero concern that I will be falsely accused or held.  I will freely speak with any member of the law.  I know many of the city police and county deputy sheriffs personally.  Probably makes a difference on how I view this topic.

Same here

[Mac62]

The police are supposed to have probable cause in detaining and questioning you, if they don't have that then you're not obligated to assist them in doing their job.  You don't get brownie points for assisting them and ultimately it could result in you being fined or arrested.

Only if you're doing something wrong in the first place (and just to clarify, the police are supposed to have "reasonable suspicion" to detain/question you - "probable cause" comes into play when it's time to arrest you.  It's an important distinction because the two standards are vastly different.)

Not saying there aren't overzealous police officers, but the number of them who would arbitrarily roust a random, completely innocent person who's doing nothing wrong are so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Especially since we're mostly talking about high crime areas within large cities - that's a "target-rich environment", there are plenty of thugs doing criminal things to keep them busy, so why would they choose to jack up somebody who's walking down the street minding their own business?  If we scale it down to minor offenses, it would be like a traffic cop stopping a guy who's doing the speed limit on the freeway while everybody around him is doing 85+ mph.  Unless he saw something else in that car that made him want to talk to that specific person (reasonable suspicion), it ain't gonna happen.

[dsc123]

Only if you're doing something wrong in the first place (and just to clarify, the police are supposed to have "reasonable suspicion" to detain/question you - "probable cause" comes into play when it's time to arrest you.  It's an important distinction because the two standards are vastly different.)

Not saying there aren't overzealous police officers, but the number of them who would arbitrarily roust a random, completely innocent person who's doing nothing wrong are so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Especially since we're mostly talking about high crime areas within large cities - that's a "target-rich environment", there are plenty of thugs doing criminal things to keep them busy, so why would they choose to jack up somebody who's walking down the street minding their own business?  If we scale it down to minor offenses, it would be like a traffic cop stopping a guy who's doing the speed limit on the freeway while everybody around him is doing 85+ mph.  Unless he saw something else in that car that made him want to talk to that specific person (reasonable suspicion), it ain't gonna happen.

Tell that to Freddie Gray.

[Mac62]

Because the nature of a stop like this is I'm being treated like a criminal and it's in my best interest to not offer any information beyond what I'm required to. If an officer stops me and I'm not free to go (he has reasonable suspicion), by definition I'm being investigated for criminal activity. It's entirely different if I had information the police would benefit from and I sought out the police to give it to them.

I can give you a great example of where this can go wrong for somebody.  You stop off at a bar with friends and have one drink after work.  It's been a long day, you're tired, and ready to head home.  As you pull out of the bar, you grab your phone to send your wife a quick text letting her know you're on the way home - unfortunately, in doing so, you're not keeping your eyes on the road and you weave out of your lane a couple times.  A traffic cop is working the area because of a high incidence of DUI, and he notices it and stops you.  When he approaches the car, he smells the beer on your breath and notices that your eyes are bloodshot and watery (because you're tired).  He starts asking you questions and you refuse to answer anything.  You refuse to do field sobriety tests or blow in the roadside alcohol tester.  You've now left him with the option of either letting a potentially intoxicated person drive down the road, or arresting you based upon the probable cause of his driving observations and objective symptoms of alcohol intoxication.  Most often, it will be the latter.  Your car is impounded, you go to jail and one of two things happen - you refuse to take a breath test (in which case additional criminal sanctions apply), or you take the breath test and blow far below the legal limit.  In the former case, you spend the night in jail and will now have to get an attorney and fight the DUI charge.  In the latter case, you'll be released - but your car stays in impound because the arrest was legal based upon the circumstances at the time, and you're on the hook for the impound charges.  Had you answered his questions and performed roadside tests at the scene, you would have been sent on your way.  Instead, you (at the minimum) took a ride to the station in handcuffs, have an expensive impound bill to pay for and wasted about 4 hours of your time.

Now, if you change the original scenario and you had 8 beers and a few shots of tequila at the bar, it's probably in your best interests to refuse to answer questions or perform roadside tests because you're dirty and you know it.  In that situation, there's no sense giving the officer more evidence than he already has because you're going to jail anyway.

[dkolo]

Only if you're doing something wrong in the first place (and just to clarify, the police are supposed to have "reasonable suspicion" to detain/question you - "probable cause" comes into play when it's time to arrest you.  It's an important distinction because the two standards are vastly different.)  Not saying there aren't overzealous police officers, but the number of them who would arbitrarily roust a random, completely innocent person who's doing nothing wrong are so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Especially since we're mostly talking about high crime areas within large cities - that's a "target-rich environment", there are plenty of thugs doing criminal things to keep them busy, so why would they choose to jack up somebody who's walking down the street minding their own business?  If we scale it down to minor offenses, it would be like a traffic cop stopping a guy who's doing the speed limit on the freeway while everybody around him is doing 85+ mph.  Unless he saw something else in that car that made him want to talk to that specific person (reasonable suspicion), it ain't gonna happen.

NYC's stop and frisk program has demonstrated these concerns regarding broad use of Terry stops to be well-founded. The use of them in these high crime neighborhoods has subjected people living in them to these searches, often absent reasonable suspicion.

[newtogolf]

Only if you're doing something wrong in the first place (and just to clarify, the police are supposed to have "reasonable suspicion" to detain/question you - "probable cause" comes into play when it's time to arrest you.  It's an important distinction because the two standards are vastly different.)

Not saying there aren't overzealous police officers, but the number of them who would arbitrarily roust a random, completely innocent person who's doing nothing wrong are so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Especially since we're mostly talking about high crime areas within large cities - that's a "target-rich environment", there are plenty of thugs doing criminal things to keep them busy, so why would they choose to jack up somebody who's walking down the street minding their own business?  If we scale it down to minor offenses, it would be like a traffic cop stopping a guy who's doing the speed limit on the freeway while everybody around him is doing 85+ mph.  Unless he saw something else in that car that made him want to talk to that specific person (reasonable suspicion), it ain't gonna happen.

That's not necessarily true, let's say you are stopped at a DWI check point (you have not consumed any alcohol or used drugs).  The police officers are stopping every car to determine if the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  At this point you have done nothing wrong and they have no reason to believe you are under the influence which would by law allow them to detain or question you.

The officer requests you fully roll down the window so they can speak to you (at that time they check for the smell of alcohol or drugs as well as check your eyes)  While they are speaking to you, they are also shining a flashlight into your car and looking for open bottles, drug paraphernalia and weapons.  They notice a baseball bat in your backseat and question why you have it in your backseat.  How you respond to that question could lead them to requesting to search your vehicle and further questioning/detainment.

[dkolo]

I can give you a great example of where this can go wrong for somebody.  You stop off at a bar with friends and have one drink after work.  It's been a long day, you're tired, and ready to head home.  As you pull out of the bar, you grab your phone to send your wife a quick text letting her know you're on the way home - unfortunately, in doing so, you're not keeping your eyes on the road and you weave out of your lane a couple times.  A traffic cop is working the area because of a high incidence of DUI, and he notices it and stops you.  When he approaches the car, he smells the beer on your breath and notices that your eyes are bloodshot and watery (because you're tired).  He starts asking you questions and you refuse to answer anything.  You refuse to do field sobriety tests or blow in the roadside alcohol tester.  You've now left him with the option of either letting a potentially intoxicated person drive down the road, or arresting you based upon the probable cause of his driving observations and objective symptoms of alcohol intoxication.  Most often, it will be the latter.  Your car is impounded, you go to jail and one of two things happen - you refuse to take a breath test (in which case additional criminal sanctions apply), or you take the breath test and blow far below the legal limit.  In the former case, you spend the night in jail and will now have to get an attorney and fight the DUI charge.  In the latter case, you'll be released - but your car stays in impound because the arrest was legal based upon the circumstances at the time, and you're on the hook for the impound charges.  Had you answered his questions and performed roadside tests at the scene, you would have been sent on your way.  Instead, you (at the minimum) took a ride to the station in handcuffs, have an expensive impound bill to pay for and wasted about 4 hours of your time. Now, if you change the original scenario and you had 8 beers and a few shots of tequila at the bar, it's probably in your best interests to refuse to answer questions or perform roadside tests because you're dirty and you know it.  In that situation, there's no sense giving the officer more evidence than he already has because you're going to jail anyway.

First of all, I specifically excluded traffic stops. Second, refusing a breath test, unless I'm insisting on having blood drawn at the station, is a per se violation of most states' DUI laws. I know that. Also, I'm not a schmuck. If I know I was pulled over for weaving and I know I'm not drunk, I know I'm going to pass the breath test and be done with it. I don't think this hypothetical is as meaningful as you think it is. I know I've done something wrong or at least given an officer cause to pull me over. This isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about cases where an officer stops you on the street or otherwise when you've been minding your own business. If he doesn't have RS, I'm challenging him on being detained. If he does, I'm handing him my ID and declining to answer questions. Neither of these things apply to your hypo.

[phan52]

I guess there's really nothing else I can say then, if you guys want to go along with the narrative that there is rampant and widespread violence from the police then that's what you will believe. Numbers show that a tiny fraction of police interactions involve abusive cops. I do think even that tiny fraction is unacceptable of course. I just go by what is known, not what is speculated, if there was a way to legitimately show that I'm wrong using numbers and facts then I'd have no problem admitting it. Either way, I've said my piece on this so I'll leave it to those with more to say.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/findsettle.php#police

Why is it that just about every police department and justice system that is investigated by the DOJ has findings of systemic abuse? They are now starting an investigation of the Baltimore police department and it is fairly obvious what they are going to find.

[newtogolf]

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/findsettle.php#police

Why is it that just about every police department and justice system that is investigated by the DOJ has findings of systemic abuse? They are now starting an investigation of the Baltimore police department and it is fairly obvious what they are going to find.

Because when you look for problems you usually find them.

[dkolo]

Because when you look for problems you usually find them.

Yeah, the DOJ isn't usually investigating the Mayberry PD from the Andy Griffith Show, haha.

[dsc123]

Yeah, the DOJ isn't usually investigating the Mayberry PD from the Andy Griffith Show, haha.

Which is kinda why nationwide stats are meaningless. It's not a problem in most places. It's A huge problem in some places. [QUOTE] Not long ago, the Hispanic residents of this gang-ridden neighborhood in Southwest Fresno would not have voluntarily spoken to a police officer, much less attended a police-sponsored block party and taken photos with the chief. But over the past decade, a sustained policing initiative marked by community meetings, Christmas gifts and dozens of neighborhood events has fundamentally altered police-resident relations. At a time when other cities were aggressively arresting people for minor crimes, a strategy known as “zero tolerance,” officials in Fresno chose a different path. They embraced the softer community-policing ethos popularized under President Bill Clinton, which emphasizes partnerships and problem-solving instead of mass arrests. Fresno officials say the result has been a significant drop in gang-related violence — and inoculation against the kind of angry protests over police brutality that have rocked Baltimore, New York, Ferguson, Mo., and other American cities over the past year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-fresno-police-focus-on-building-relationships-not-making-arrests/2015/05/06/3c396f04-eab9-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html[/QUOTE]

[RandallT]

Originally Posted by dkolo

Yeah, the DOJ isn't usually investigating the Mayberry PD from the Andy Griffith Show, haha.

Which is kinda why nationwide stats are meaningless. It's not a problem in most places. It's A huge problem in some places.

"Not long ago, the Hispanic residents of this gang-ridden neighborhood in Southwest Fresno would not have voluntarily spoken to a police officer, much less attended a police-sponsored block party and taken photos with the chief. But over the past decade, a sustained policing initiative marked by community meetings, Christmas gifts and dozens of neighborhood events has fundamentally altered police-resident relations.

The Washington Post

National

In Fresno, a community-policing ethos builds ties between officers and residents

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email Share on WhatsappShare on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Tumblr

Resize Text Print Article Comments 107

Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer mingles with 2-year-old Josiah Johnson and his father, Dorian, in April during the Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission's YouthBuild community event. (Carl Costas/For The Washington Post)

By Wesley Lowery May 7

FRESNO, Calif. — The toddler had just finished having his face painted bright red and white when he barreled toward Jerry Dyer, Fresno’s broad-shouldered chief of police. Dyer, his bald head reddening after several hours in the sun, bent to catch the boy.

“You having a good time?” Dyer asked with a smile, as the child’s mother whipped out a phone to take a photo. “When you get a little bigger, I want you to grow up to be a police officer.”

Not long ago, the Hispanic residents of this gang-ridden neighborhood in Southwest Fresno would not have voluntarily spoken to a police officer, much less attended a police-sponsored block party and taken photos with the chief. But over the past decade, a sustained policing initiative marked by community meetings, Christmas gifts and dozens of neighborhood events has fundamentally altered police-resident relations.

At a time when other cities were aggressively arresting people for minor crimes, a strategy known as “zero tolerance,” officials in Fresno chose a different path. They embraced the softer community-policing ethos popularized under President Bill Clinton, which emphasizes partnerships and problem-solving instead of mass arrests.

Fresno officials say the result has been a significant drop in gang-related violence — and inoculation against the kind of angry protests over police brutality that have rocked Baltimore, New York, Ferguson, Mo., and other American cities over the past year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-fresno-police-focus-on-building-relationships-not-making-arrests/2015/05/06/3c396f04-eab9-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html

Cool story, thanks for sharing.

I hope communities can see things like this and decide what is best for theirs. Wonderful to see communities take charge and make improvements. I'd much rather see this success than the recriminations and investigations that usually would happen in a failed policing environment. Sure, the investigations/blame/cleaning house might need to happen to kickstart change, but it should move quickly to a solution, and this solution seems like it worked pretty well for Fresno.

My gut tells me Baltimore is mired in resentment and bitterness that it's unlikely they could move toward this model anytime soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Golfingdad]

Which is kinda why nationwide stats are meaningless. It's not a problem in most places. It's A huge problem in some places.

My hometown!!!