Oregon bill aims to crack down on racially motivated 911 calls

Radagast said:

Actually, there is no upper limit to the $ amount. The $250 is a minimum.

Click to expand...

From the article....

"Victims of those police calls would be able to sue the caller for up to $250...."

Even if they didn't impose a limit, there's a limit to the amount one can seek in small claims court.

Exactly, so if you call 911 and get sued, you're guaranteed to lose, since at least you're up for legal fees. That's a really, really big reason not to call 911.

Click to expand...

Well you can always just counter sue for damages related to the false allegations. Generally, I think the small claims court can decide on both at the same time....if the allegations don't have any merit, then the court will recognize the court costs and any other potential damages (like missing work).

variant said:

You don't think it would work like a normal judicial proceeding?

Click to expand...

You mean where the defendant is presumed innocent and those claiming wrongdoing are required to prove their allegations?

I think they enshrined that principle in the wording of the law.

You think so?

Accuser:
I was making a call in the middle of a hotel lobby and someone called the cops on me.

Defendant:
Silence?

Doesn't sound like a great defense to me.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a jury in small claims court. It's typically just a judge.

So yes...a great defense actually. What would they need to answer to? No evidence of any wrongdoing was given.

They should have a reason to be suspicious then. As long as the reasoning is there it seems like it would be hard to prosecute.

Click to expand...

I agree....they should, but the law doesn't seem to require it. That's probably the whole presumption of innocence thing.

I think the guy in the hotel has a pretty solid case. He was making a phone call in a hotel lobby. So, it doesn't sound all that suspicious. Or the lady that got the police called on her by knocking on doors campaigning while being black.

Click to expand...

I think they have a very strong chance of proving that they didn't commit any crimes.

That doesn't mean that the caller didn't suspect a crime took place though....it just means no actual crime took place. What's worse is that it's 911....so there's a recording of that call somewhere. Unless they say some overtly racist stuff to 911 (like "black people don't belong in my neighborhood") that's gonna be a tough case to prove. Even worse, if the caller gives a crime related reason for calling....they're basically off the hook. It may be a wrong suspicion....or even an unreasonable suspicion....but wrong or unreasonable don't equal racism.

...and being wrong or unreasonable aren't on trial.

I am also pretty sure that you can already claim damages from people using the police or legal system to harass you. It's just not usually done.

Click to expand...

I think you're right....but harassment is usually defined as sustained...not a one time thing.

Ana the Ist said:

I don't think there's a jury in small claims court. It's typically just a judge.

So yes...a great defense actually. What would they need to answer to? No evidence of any wrongdoing was given.

Click to expand...

I think the judge is going to fine you and send you on your way.

I agree....they should, but the law doesn't seem to require it. That's probably the whole presumption of innocence thing.

Click to expand...

The presumption of innocence is the standard so you have to form a reasonable doubt that the person did it.

I think they have a very strong chance of proving that they didn't commit any crimes.

That doesn't mean that the caller didn't suspect a crime took place though....it just means no actual crime took place. What's worse is that it's 911....so there's a recording of that call somewhere. Unless they say some overtly racist stuff to 911 (like "black people don't belong in my neighborhood") that's gonna be a tough case to prove. Even worse, if the caller gives a crime related reason for calling....they're basically off the hook. It may be a wrong suspicion....or even an unreasonable suspicion....but wrong or unreasonable don't equal racism.

...and being wrong or unreasonable aren't on trial.

Click to expand...

"There's a black person in my neighborhood and thus I am suspicious" is going to get them convicted of this particular issue. That 911 call is going to be the main body of evidence in most of them.

Which means of course that people will have the means access to the 911 tapes of the people calling the police on them. So, at the very least we're going to have a public airing of that sort of thing when we get some "wrong and unreasonable" 911 calls.

I think you're right....but harassment is usually defined as sustained...not a one time thing.

Click to expand...

Depends on if there are damages. If you can actually demonstrate intent to threaten, demean or terrorize then I think you would have a case in any state without the statute.

variant said:

I think the judge is going to fine you and send you on your way.

Click to expand...

How would they justify that?

Defendant-"Your honor, no evidence of racism was presented...."

Judge-"I know, but it feels like you were racist..."

The presumption of innocence is the standard so you have to form a reasonable doubt that the person did it.

Click to expand...

Sorry? Reasonable doubt is the standard for the defense's explanation of evidence.

If a prosecutor had no evidence.....direct, indirect, circumstantial....he shouldn't press charges. I'm inclined to think the vast majority wouldn't.

"There's a black person in my neighborhood and thus I am suspicious" is going to get them convicted of this particular issue. That 911 call is going to be the main body of evidence in most of them.

Click to expand...

Probably....but how many 911 calls do you think sound like that? My guess is the number is far far lower than the number suspected of racism.

Which means of course that people will have the means access to the 911 tapes of the people calling the police on them. So, at the very least we're going to have a public airing of that sort of thing when we get some "wrong and unreasonable" 911 calls.

Click to expand...

Meaning what? If they don't get sued for 250$ we're going to publicly shame them?

I literally just posted a story about a false racism claim that netted a baker 11$ million. Frankly, you'd risk giving the person a fantastic reason to sue their accuser for real money. It's a strong argument that the public backlash wouldn't exist if they weren't falsely accused in the first place.

Depends on if there are damages. If you can actually demonstrate intent to threaten, demean or terrorize then I think you would have a case in any state without the statute.

Click to expand...

Yeah....I could see that.

Ana the Ist said:

From the article....

"Victims of those police calls would be able to sue the caller for up to $250...."

Click to expand...

Forget the article. It means nothing. The legislation, which I linked to, says:

(2) Upon prevailing in an action under this section, the plaintiff may recover: (a) The greater of: (A) Special and general damages, including damages for emotional distress; or (B) Statutory damages of $250 against each defendant found liable under this section; and (b) Punitive damages.

(3) The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff in an action under this section.

(4) A civil action under this section: (a) May be brought in the small claims department of a circuit court if the total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the small claims department.

Ana the Ist said:

Even if they didn't impose a limit, there's a limit to the amount one can seek in small claims court.

Click to expand...

The legislation doesn't require people to go to the small claims court. It's just an option.

Ana the Ist said:

if the allegations don't have any merit, then the court will recognize the court costs and any other potential damages (like missing work).

Click to expand...

The legislation appears only to allow for costs to the plaintiff, not to an unjustly accused defendant.

I'm sure this is a problem sometimes but sometimes people do have real complaints. Like a few weeks ago when my neighbors were blasting their bluetooth speaker out by the pool, probably drinking way too much alcohol (the music was very loud, it was 65 decibels in my bedroom). It didn't even feel safe for me to go out and talk to the people as a gringo- especially if alcohol were involved. So I can understand the temptation to call the police.

Noise problems are really getting to be a problem with newer class D amplifier technology they have now days. There's plenty of large, wireless "boom boxes" that can run for hours and play at very high volumes and low frequencies.

Ana the Ist said:

How would they justify that?

Defendant-"Your honor, no evidence of racism was presented...."

Judge-"I know, but it feels like you were racist..."

Click to expand...

If you don't even have a reasonable sounding explanation for why you called the police, I think just denying the charge seems callous and stupid.

Sorry? Reasonable doubt is the standard for the defense's explanation of evidence.

If a prosecutor had no evidence.....direct, indirect, circumstantial....he shouldn't press charges. I'm inclined to think the vast majority wouldn't.

Click to expand...

The circumstances are gong to be the evidence.

Probably....but how many 911 calls do you think sound like that? My guess is the number is far far lower than the number suspected of racism.

Click to expand...

I think all these cases are going to sound at the least suspicious.

Meaning what? If they don't get sued for 250$ we're going to publicly shame them?

I literally just posted a story about a false racism claim that netted a baker 11$ million. Frankly, you'd risk giving the person a fantastic reason to sue their accuser for real money. It's a strong argument that the public backlash wouldn't exist if they weren't falsely accused in the first place.

Click to expand...

If the worst that happens is that people doing wrong and unreasonable things get shown to be wrong and unreasonable. What's the harm?

Yeah....I could see that.

Click to expand...

variant said:

If you don't even have a reasonable sounding explanation for why you called the police, I think just denying the charge seems callous and stupid.

Click to expand...

Well they really only need an explanation that isn't racist. I don't think it matters if anyone agrees with the reasoning. Again, "reasonable" isn't on trial here.

The circumstances are gong to be the evidence.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense....calling the cops on someone of a different race doesn't make you racist. That's absurd.

I think all these cases are going to sound at the least suspicious.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I think we're going to get some interesting statistics out of it. For example, number of times someone accused someone of racism vs. number of times they had any evidence of it.

If the worst that happens is that people doing wrong and unreasonable things get shown to be wrong and unreasonable. What's the harm?

Click to expand...

Wrong and unreasonable are pretty human things....and it's rather ridiculous to punish people for them. We're all wrong and unreasonable at times.

Ana the Ist said:

Well they really only need an explanation that isn't racist. I don't think it matters if anyone agrees with the reasoning. Again, "reasonable" isn't on trial here.

Click to expand...

By "reasonable" I mean It would have to sound not made up and agree with the facts.

That doesn't make any sense....calling the cops on someone of a different race doesn't make you racist. That's absurd.

Click to expand...

It does if you called the cops because you are naturally suspicious because the people are black, that's kind of what racism is.

The basic question "why were you suspicious" should have some sort of answer.

Again, I would cite the guy using the telephone in a hotel lobby. If you can't come up with a reason why you think the police need to be involved I don't see how you can defend the action.

Or we can talk about the woman that called the cops on the person campaigning door to door in her neighborhood. She'd already worked it out in her mind that the black person she saw was there to buy drugs at the "drug house".

Or... Or.. Or.

Perhaps. I think we're going to get some interesting statistics out of it. For example, number of times someone accused someone of racism vs. number of times they had any evidence of it.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Wrong and unreasonable are pretty human things....and it's rather ridiculous to punish people for them. We're all wrong and unreasonable at times.

Click to expand...

"calling the cops" unreasonable is a bit more than garden variety unreasonable.

I don't see any problem with holding people to account for when they choose to involve the law.

FireDragon76 said:

It didn't even feel safe for me to go out and talk to the people as a gringo- especially if alcohol were involved.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you elaborate on why it didn't feel safe?

Chesterton said:

Interesting. Can you elaborate on why it didn't feel safe?

Click to expand...

I guess I have an aversion to conflict and even the possibility of physical violence is something I don't care to face.

variant said:

By "reasonable" I mean It would have to sound not made up and agree with the facts.

Click to expand...

By "reasonable" isn't on trial, I mean that even if a reason for calling sounds completely unreasonable...it shouldn't result in a judgement against the defendant unless it was somehow racist.

It does if you called the cops because you are naturally suspicious because the people are black, that's kind of what racism is.

Click to expand...

Unless they said something referring to race...I don't see how one would be able to reasonably conclude "this person is suspicious of people because of their race".

"calling the cops" unreasonable is a bit more than garden variety unreasonable.

Click to expand...

In what way?

I don't see any problem with holding people to account for when they choose to involve the law.

Click to expand...

Involving the law isn't the issue....racism is. If they aren't proven to be calling because of racism, they can involve the law. That's really the point of the police...if you call them when you believe a crime is in progress, they can possibly stop it.

Ana the Ist said:

By "reasonable" isn't on trial, I mean that even if a reason for calling sounds completely unreasonable...it shouldn't result in a judgement against the defendant unless it was somehow racist.

Click to expand...

Racist is one of the ways to be unreasonable.

Unless they said something referring to race...I don't see how one would be able to reasonably conclude "this person is suspicious of people because of their race".

Click to expand...

Then you don't live in the real world.

The guy in the hotel for instance was hassled because he was a black guy on a phone in the hotel, in the common area...

The guard didn't just hassle everyone.

In what way?

Click to expand...

When you call the police you are saying "I need an armed representative of the government to come here and restore law and order by force". It's a bit more than just being ones unreasonable self day to day.

When you do so and don't have a reason you're dong so, or the situation would have been easy to resolve by not acting like a racist idiot, I think it's safe to say you are abusing the legal system and harassing people.

Involving the law isn't the issue....racism is. If they aren't proven to be calling because of racism, they can involve the law. That's really the point of the police...if you call them when you believe a crime is in progress, they can possibly stop it.

Click to expand...

For some people, such as yourself, I doubt anyone will ever be able to demonstrate racism has occurred regardless of these things that regularly happen where people get the police called on them for being black and going about their day.

usexpat97 said:

I don't like it. Besides the fact that one should not face potentially negative ramifications for calling 911 unless it is just obvious it's abusing the number--who is seriously going to sue someone for $250? What attorney would take up that case?

Click to expand...

You don't need a lawyer for Small Claims Court - which is the point of this court.

variant said:

Racist is one of the ways to be unreasonable.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of ways to be unreasonable. Unreasonable doesn't equal racist.

Then you don't live in the real world.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

The guy in the hotel for instance was hassled because he was a black guy on a phone in the hotel, in the common area...

The guard didn't just hassle everyone.

Click to expand...

The guard has never....ever....stopped someone from using the phone in the lobby? How do you know that?

When you call the police you are saying "I need an armed representative of the government to come here and restore law and order by force". It's a bit more than just being ones unreasonable self day to day.

Click to expand...

Actually you're just saying there's a possibility of a crime or you personally need help.

When you do so and don't have a reason you're dong so, or the situation would have been easy to resolve by not acting like a racist idiot, I think it's safe to say you are abusing the legal system and harassing people.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

For some people, such as yourself, I doubt anyone will ever be able to demonstrate racism has occurred regardless of these things that regularly happen where people get the police called on them for being black and going about their day.

Click to expand...

Someone like me? Did I jump to conclusions about Jussie Smollett or Covington high school or any other number of accusations of racism that turned out to be nothing?

Maybe you don't remember this....

South Carolina mayor suspects ‘yellow sticky substance’ on her car was sprayed by vandals, not a pollen cloud

Pollen, the new hate crime.

There is racism...racist incidents do occur. Take a look...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-after-racist-rant-toward-black-neighbor/amp/

You can tell by the words she's using that there's a racist angle to that incident.

I'm not saying that any of these incidents you mentioned weren't racist....maybe they were, but join me here in reality where evidence matters and common sense prevails. Join me in a place where jumping to conclusions about someone's motives is as bad as jumping to conclusions about someone's behavior.

Brightmoon said:

its because calling the police on a person minding their own business is 1 harassment of that person and 2 a waste of the police’s time which does cost the city money and 3could endanger someone else. Yeah fine ‘em

Click to expand...

So it should not be a lawsuit--which costs the county even more than the 9111 call.

It should be a nuisance fine, ticketed by the police at the scene when they determine they were called unnecessarily.

Aldebaran said:

From what I've been told by police, it's not illegal to call them and they have to follow-up on calls. That's what I was told by them when someone kept calling them about me multiple times for sitting on my front porch or looking out my window or being out in my yard. I even reported her to her landlord and he said he wouldn't tell her to stop doing it. He did seem to find a way to get her to move and tighten his requirements on who he rents to though.

Click to expand...

The city can make you pay for it, though. In many municipalities, for instance, the city will fine you for security alarm false alarms. In some cases you have to pay for a permit to have a home alarm system to cover the average cost of false alarms per home, and in some cases they'll fine you anyway if your false alarms are more frequent that average.

So there is certainly precedent for creating consequences for nuisance calls.