Are black on white attacks justified?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
- Status
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
To recap: you said she was breaking the law, then you said you didn't know what the law was, while ignoring the ludicrousness of them asking for her ID. Got it.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Racism is evil and wicked. Racism being prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
In general, police can stop and ask you for any information they want. If they don't reasonably suspect you are involved in a crime they can't detain you and a simple, "Am I free to go?" can end the inquiry, provided the answer is yes.
If they think you have broken a law they can detain you (a Terry stop), pat you down and ask for identification. They aren't then required to arrest you, though it's an option that will be exercised if the questioning leads them in that direction.
Many states have stop and identify statutes that require you to produce identification at that time, if you have it, or to provide your name and other relevant information if you don't. Failure to do so is itself then a crime and you're on your way to the back of the squad car if you don't respond. In some states you're free to remain silent, even on the point. So it's a jurisdictionally controlled issue. I don't know if Texas has this on the books or not.
Looking at the video, the police were attempting to be helpful and protect her. Why she wasn't on the sidewalk to begin with is anyone's guess, and there may be a particular city statute regarding how or if you can walk on roadways in that area. It varies. It doesn't appear that the officers were attempting to do more than look after her safety. The first thing I noticed was that the earliest officer on camera appeared to approach her with a smile.They made it clear enough early on that they were primarily concerned with her both impeding traffic and placing herself in jeopardy. The request for a name to use in an incident report doesn't seem unwarranted or unusual, though she could have simply asked if she was required to provide it and the likely answer would have been no.
I disagree with anna on this one. I think they had a legitimate concern, voiced it, and were at all points in the video respectful and clear. Had she been walking against traffic or on the sidewalk I have no reason to suspect they would have troubled her.
If they think you have broken a law they can detain you (a Terry stop), pat you down and ask for identification. They aren't then required to arrest you, though it's an option that will be exercised if the questioning leads them in that direction.
Many states have stop and identify statutes that require you to produce identification at that time, if you have it, or to provide your name and other relevant information if you don't. Failure to do so is itself then a crime and you're on your way to the back of the squad car if you don't respond. In some states you're free to remain silent, even on the point. So it's a jurisdictionally controlled issue. I don't know if Texas has this on the books or not.
Looking at the video, the police were attempting to be helpful and protect her. Why she wasn't on the sidewalk to begin with is anyone's guess, and there may be a particular city statute regarding how or if you can walk on roadways in that area. It varies. It doesn't appear that the officers were attempting to do more than look after her safety. The first thing I noticed was that the earliest officer on camera appeared to approach her with a smile.They made it clear enough early on that they were primarily concerned with her both impeding traffic and placing herself in jeopardy. The request for a name to use in an incident report doesn't seem unwarranted or unusual, though she could have simply asked if she was required to provide it and the likely answer would have been no.
I disagree with anna on this one. I think they had a legitimate concern, voiced it, and were at all points in the video respectful and clear. Had she been walking against traffic or on the sidewalk I have no reason to suspect they would have troubled her.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
They have to have reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has taken place or is about to.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement
Again, they have to have reasonable suspicion.
In Texas:
"Texas law requires a person to provide their name, residence address and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information, however it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)"
No one's said anything about the officers not being polite, and I haven't argued that as an issue in the discussion, so I won't address that part of it. My issue is that they had no legal cause to ask for her ID.
And sure, we disagree on this, because having advised her to walk against traffic, they could have moved on. I saw no reason at all to ask for her ID. Seriously, this would normally be a "Don't Tread on Me" moment for the average right winger. Except...
To demand, sure. I think I wrote as much.
Right. And I noted that a Terry search requires reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. Some states have laws that require the citizen in those circumstances to provide identification, but other states have laws that give the citizen in that position the option to refuse, short of arrest.
I didn't say she was required to give them her name. I wasn't aware that Texas had enacted its own stop and demand provision...and I think I set out the particulars on the law to the extent possible without knowing the particular statutes of Dallas regarding pedestrians on a roadway. If walking with traffic on a roadway is illegal then they have the crime, modest as it is, that would open her to having to provide identification incident to arrest or a ticketing, though I don't believe the video establishes a demand or an attempt to arrest or ticket, only a request which she was then free to deny.
Okay, but you left out the larger comment on point surrounding my note that the officers don't appear to be interested in harassing her and that they have reason, arguably even an obligation to alert her to the unsafe nature of her choice. And that's without a statute on the books she could have been violating. Just as a matter of course relating to her impeding traffic and endangering herself with that safer sidewalk option a few feet away.
As to legal reason for asking, that's a conflation of sorts. They had reason to ask her (making an incident report) but no legal reason to demand it, unless they wanted to actually give her a hard time by enforcing a relatively minor statutory provision regarding her walking in the road.
Well, they actually did. But the one officer who appeared to be making an incident report simply asked if she had ID and then requested information to put into it report. She was free to refuse to provide it and/or to ask if she was required to provide it or if she was free to go.
It's just paperwork. They weren't asking for bank records or a social security number and they accepted what she said at face value.
And I'd take exception to that too, because her actions constituted an impediment to traffic, endangered her, and there was a perfectly good sidewalk four feet away.
Time lapse...According to the Texas department of transportation:
A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on: (1) the left side of the roadway; or (2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic. Tex. Transp. Code § 552.006.
Perhaps they should have ticketed her instead of showing grace to make an honest woman of her.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I wonder if there would be a need for an incident report if they'd stayed in the car? I don't know.
She was over on the side of the street. She wasn't endangered any more than people who ride their bikes on the right side of the street are endangered, plus she was in a deserted residential area minding her own business.
It's more than just paperwork. You don't see it the way I see it, that's fine, although the extra helping of "bank records or a social security number" wasn't helpful or necessary.
I'd already looked this up, and mentioned it to Nick in a previous post, in which I said something to the effect that if it was a matter of her being on the sidewalk, he certainly didn't tell her to get on the sidewalk. He told her to walk on the other side of the road, so she could "jump out of the way" if she needed to.
It sure is different where I live. I've been recreational walking for 20-plus years, seen a lot of fellow walkers and joggers, and sometimes we're on one side and sometimes on the other, for whatever reasons apply for the area. Never once have I been stopped and told to walk on the other side. Did you notice in the video how deserted the street was? It's not like she was in the middle of a commercial district.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I guess this supposed "liberal" has a different idea of what individual freedom looks like than some others here, and not being asked for ID without probable cause is something I believe is just as important a right all the rest of them.
I doubt that would have been following procedure. In any event, they decided that they needed to talk with her about what they'd observed and their concerns and within the law as I understand it there, that seems reasonable. Beyond that, they don't appear to have any hostile agenda, so...I don't see any reason for either side of this to be upset.
At the beginning of the video she's about a third of the way into the street, plus arm extension. Then she moves more to the right, perhaps sensing or hearing the police cruiser.
I'm sure there's code for bikers as well, though I'd have to look it up. The officers mentioned a truck that had to break earlier and noted that she seemed unaware that they were coming up behind her. Couple that with the fact that there was a sidewalk available and the code I noted and I'm not sure what you're seeing here that's out of the ordinary or in any real sense anything more than policemen voicing a concern to a citizen that seems reasonable and doing the better part of their duty.
I disagree. I think it puts one concern in a real context. They weren't demanding anything, only asking, and what they were asking for wasn't unreasonable or framed as a demand. Beyond that, they accepted her representation when offered. Seems reasonable.
There's literally nothing to support your "more than paperwork" given they didn't insist, only asked, the officer made note of it for his report and they accepted her representation readily. The only thing I would have balked at was the age inquiry. But again, it's an inquiry, not a demand. It's a gentle enough instruction on where she should be, not a ticket and a harsh lecture.
We don't see the whole neighborhood, but she obviously knew there was a side walk there and chose, for whatever reason, to walk on the street. I think the officers went with that and tried to course correct which side of the street she walked, to make everyone safer and in compliance with the spirit of the code. I don't think a case can be made from the video that anything else is happening.
Did you hear what they said about the truck and her seeming inability to recognize their approach until very late? In any event, to turn tables, I don't think your anecdotal is relevant. It certainly doesn't establish the rule. The code does that. I don't know if this is the sort of thing one would regularly find police doing around Dallas, but I'm equally unsure what it is you seem to think the officers are doing beyond what I noted...what I saw was within the line and scope of their duty/obligation given the facts they related to her on the video. They didn't harass, ticket, or arrest. They evidenced concern and responded to her requests to be photoed in a professional and polite fashion. Short of not caring, what else is there in a positive sense?
You aren't free to do what she was doing. Freedom to act isn't freedom from reasonable constraint. The officers appeared to believe her safety would be better served by following the code. I don't know what the code is in your area, so I can't speak to whether the police are being indifferent to duty or following it.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I most certainly am free to do what she was doing, and I'll keep on doing it.
I'm not going to keep going with this, I've made my points and really don't like rehashing them.
I was using the larger "you", as in no one in her area is free to do what she was doing. Or, you aren't free to walk with traffic on a street in Dallas, by code.
I'd have settled for a meeting of the points I set out, which were largely objective observations, but okay.
'Probable cause' is a protection from police overstepping their bounds. But even then, they do slick things like ask to search you when they know they have no legal basis for it- they just want to take advantage of any lacking knowledge of the law a person may have. But if you submit, it's legal for them to commence.
That's not protecting and serving, that's being adversarial.
That's not protecting and serving, that's being adversarial.
Tyrathca
New member
*sigh*.... Really? You're putting such little effort into this trolling it's insulting.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
1. Is there any reason to believe (from the video) that the officers knew she was black before she turned around?
2. Have you ever written up an incident report?
3. You show occasional signs of intelligence - can you think of any reason why the cops might want to keep track of who's walking around a specific neighborhood?
hint:
Spoiler
Last edited:
No, it's a standard meant to guide the officer and protect the individual from unreasonable conduct.
Mostly that's not what we're really talking about though and it doesn't appear to have much to do with this incident.
So I found the root of this...the woman's name is Dorothy Bland and she asserts that it was a case of "walking while black".
Here's what irks me about that. Every day any number of black people have legitimate grievances related to harassment and mistreatment. Those cases comprise a fairly small sliver of a by and large well behaved and professional police force, but they happen. And when they happen they deserve serious attention and redress. But sometimes a cigar is just a lady walking down the wrong side of the street flapping her arms, posing a danger to herself and acting as an inadvertent traffic hazard. When people like Bland make this sort of public and factually unsupported outcry they damage the general credibility of the rest, make it easier for authority to dismiss and others to approach with additional skepticism. Crying wolf doesn't just make the boy look bad. It can taint a general impression.
The facts are that an established sergeant and his trainee stopped a woman who was walking in the road, on the wrong side of it, with a sidewalk present, impeding at least one vehicle in violation of code. Worse, she had headphones on and was fairly oblivious to anything not in her immediate range of sight. The officers noted one incident with a truck and her general pattern and stopped to correct and protect the woman. They were polite, told her why they'd decided to act (cause) and what she should do to protect herself. They weren't rude. They didn't ticket her. They accepted her accounting of who she was and what she was doing.
It was the sort of interaction you'd hope to see more of, officers protecting and serving and doing so with the spirit of the law above its letter.
But no, this woman decided to be offended anyway, to look through the lens of her own bias and say, "Yes. In the words of Sal Ruibal, 'Walking while black is a crime in many jurisdictions. May God have mercy on our nation."
Yes, God have mercy on you if you're breaking a traffic law, needlessly endangering yourself, and two officers do the minimum of what they're entitled to do in order in order to a) remain outside of a truly adversarial situation and b) to put you in a safer situation.
lain:Bland continues, "I guess I was simply a brown face in an affluent neighborhood."
Or, someone walking down the street on the wrong side with headphones who almost caused and incident with a vehicle and who was treated by police with concern and respect, God forbid. The only antagonistic behavior was hers. You could see her bias informing and guiding the incident as it unfolded, from the photograph the officers didn't have to accommodate, but did, to her parting "I pay a lot of taxes too, by the way" remark.
The fact is that those officers were justifying the expense, not the condemnation.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
police overstepping their bounds isn't unreasonable conduct? :freak:
Thanks, but I think Dorothy already illustrated how people can make unreasonable, biased conclusions from facts that don't support it.
lain:- Status