Sitting while Black

[Joykins]

"The talk" isn't really about avoiding police. It's about a series of things to do and say to police to avoid being perceived as *more of a threat.*

Even when all you were doing was sitting on a public bench.

PW2004, the things you are suggesting about being respectful and compliant and defusing the situation are the cornerstone of "the talk." And, as you see, violating the principles of "the talk" (if that's what happened--I forgot the details)--not breaking the law--got Lollie tased and arrested.

If your SIL is black, then you may have the same fears I do about my multiracial nephews and niece, and one of those fears is that those sweet kids are going to be disproportionately targeted in ways I am not by the system. Even if they are doing stuff that I could totally get away with. And while I am usually laid-back, I can get mouthy, argue, and refuse to budge when I get it in my head that I must or must not do something, no matter how nonsensical (last time it involved 2 huge bins of library books, don't ask); anyone could.

 

[CaDan]

The "talk" is one every parent should have with their kid and it shouldn't be "since you're black..." because that teaches kids that they're victims. It teaches kids to not be responsible for their actions. It teaches them to scream "this is all because I'm black" every time something bad happens to them.

You tell your kids to respect the ones in authority. Like it or not, police DO have authority. Police do abuse that authority. This was not a case of that though. Ultimately, there are two major factors here. One is that the security guard called the police and we really don't know what was said between the guard and Lollie, and the guard and the dispatcher. Two is that Lollie refused to do what the police officers were telling him to do. Whether the police are right or wrong in a person's mind is actually irrelevant to the present situation. I would've had more faith in this guy's story if he had been respectful the whole way through, stopped to talk with the officer rather than trying to speed walk away and then continuing to argue with three more officers. Had he maintained decorum, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I realize there are people who honestly believe that he was screwed from the beginning, but I doubt that, because as I said, I know plenty of people who've extricated themselves from such situations easily.

I don't get it.

I mean, seriously. You have in the past cheered extra-judicial killings. Now you cheer on police violations of the law of our state.

These things are not our ideals. They are bad things that should not happen. Yet, for you, they are not even regrettable.

I also know you're not just some troll parroting the party line. You're mostly a decent human being.

Yet, you say these . . . things.

I don't get it.

 

[Creech]

Although there occasionally may be abuses, I support the police officers of America 100% in defending our communities.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Although there occasionally may be abuses, I support the police officers of America 100% in defending our communities.

^^This should answer your question...or statement, or whatever it was, CaDan.

Having been trained as LEO, having many cops as friends and family members, as well as having black relatives, I can tell you honestly and true that the majority of black folks in both of those categories believe that police get it right nearly all of the time.

I believe in respect above all. The police were only going on what they knew from the phone call from the security guard. For all we know, Lollie was disrespectful to the security guard, and since we know he didn't leave right away (whether it was public or not...) it's probable that the security guard considered him to be a disturbance.

There are people in this thread hot to trot and condemn the officers. There are people in this thread who have decided to attack and condemn Lollie. I've offered what I believe to be a pretty fair and balanced analysis of the situation, saying what the cops did wrong and what Mr. Lollie did wrong.

 

[Armoured]

Having been trained as LEO, having many cops as friends and family members, as well as having black relatives, I can tell you honestly and true that the majority of black folks in both of those categories believe that police get it right nearly all of the time.

Therefore we can ignore the occasional times they don't.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Therefore we can ignore the occasional times they don't.

Here...I just spit the words you put in my mouth back at you.

Try again.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Having been trained as LEO, having many cops as friends and family members, as well as having black relatives, I can tell you honestly and true that the majority of black folks in both of those categories believe that police get it right nearly all of the time.

I believe in respect above all. The police were only going on what they knew from the phone call from the security guard. For all we know, Lollie was disrespectful to the security guard, and since we know he didn't leave right away (whether it was public or not...) it's probable that the security guard considered him to be a disturbance.

There are people in this thread hot to trot and condemn the officers. There are people in this thread who have decided to attack and condemn Lollie. I've offered what I believe to be a pretty fair and balanced analysis of the situation, saying what the cops did wrong and what Mr. Lollie did wrong.

I generally think you're a reasonable person, but I think your close ties to the law enforcement community are clouding your judgment.

Could Lollie have helped himself by staying calm and not running his mouth? Sure.

But the truth is that he shouldn't have had to. I don't fault the first officer for following him and being persistent, but the 2nd one (or 3rd one, I forget at this point) initiated the assault with only the weakest attempt at justifying it (i.e. Lollie's "squared shoulders" and "clenched fist").

The reason that some folks keep bringing up the domestic violence comparison is because you're blaming the victim, which is the absurdity that "Baby, why'd you make me hit you?" is supposed to highlight.

 

[Armoured]

Here...I just spit the words you put in my mouth back at you.

Try again.

Don't have to. The way you instantly descend on these threads anytime anyone questions a police officer's conduct makes the point perfectly well.

Poor misunderstood altruistic police can do no wrong and the ungrateful public are all guilty until proven innocent. We get it.

Edit: Am I being unfair? Feel free to link me to any thread where you have unambiguously decried any police officer without pleading mitigation by victim blaming/shaming and I will instantly retract and apologise. Suspect I'll be waiting a while, though.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I generally think you're a reasonable person, but I think your close ties to the law enforcement community are clouding your judgment.

I believe it gives me a much clearer perspective. It's a lot easier to see where police screwed up when you know how they're trained and what sort of information they receive on calls. It's not much, actually, and they're trained to go in expecting anything, because anything is usually what happens.

Could Lollie have helped himself by staying calm and not running his mouth? Sure.

But the truth is that he shouldn't have had to. I don't fault the first officer for following him and being persistent, but the 2nd one (or 3rd one, I forget at this point) initiated the assault with only the weakest attempt at justifying it (i.e. Lollie's "squared shoulders" and "clenched fist").

And I've never disagreed with that part.

But, his actions throughout ended up warranting the tasing as far as I'm concerned.

The reason that some folks keep bringing up the domestic violence comparison is because you're blaming the victim, which is the absurdity that "Baby, why'd you make me hit you?" is supposed to highlight.

I've blamed BOTH parties here.

Again, as a victim of domestic violence, the two situations DO NOT compare. Those words make me physically ill.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Although there occasionally may be abuses, I support the police officers of America 100% in defending our communities.

As do I. However, when they abuse their authority -- and they sometimes do; sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately -- they're no longer defending the community; they're endangering it.

That I do not support.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Don't have to. The way you instantly descend on these threads anytime anyone questions a police officer's conduct makes the point perfectly well.

Poor misunderstood altruistic police can do no wrong and the ungrateful public are all guilty until proven innocent. We get it.

Which, again, is nothing I've ever said.

Edit: Am I being unfair? Feel free to link me to any thread where you have unambiguously decried any police officer without pleading mitigation by victim blaming/shaming and I will instantly retract and apologise. Suspect I'll be waiting a while, though.

I don't decry anything wholeheartedly when I don't have all the facts, but there are a few places where I have said "if this is true, then shame on the cops". Of course, I've also said that about suspects, too, so...

Go ahead, spin THAT in a way that makes you feel good about your self.

 

[Armoured]

Which, again, is nothing I've ever said.

Right. So, we'll add "summation" and "paraphrasing" to the list.

I don't decry anything wholeheartedly when I don't have all the facts, but there are a few places where I have said "if this is true, then shame on the cops". Of course, I've also said that about suspects, too, so...

Go ahead, spin THAT in a way that makes you feel good about your self.

Translation: No. I have never unambiguously acknowledged police doing wrong.

Do you offer the same qualifications and benefits-of-the-doubt when discussing or considering accused criminals?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

As do I. However, when they abuse their authority -- and they sometimes do; sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately -- they're no longer defending the community; they're endangering it.

That I do not support.

I believe that police officers do make mistakes based on bad information. And yes, I believe there are bully cops out there as well.

I can forgive a cop erring based on the knowledge he had. I put the cops in this situation in that category.

Cops that are bullies, the ones that do it one purpose, though...I have a difficult time even having a Christian response to them.

 

[katherine2001]

As do I. However, when they abuse their authority -- and they sometimes do; sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately -- they're no longer defending the community; they're endangering it.

That I do not support.

I am very concerned about how some policemen are acting lately. You see them beating or kicking people, and other things. There is absolutely no excuse for that--none! They are using excessive force, and some have died as a result. Also, too many are going above the law and detaining/arresting people who haven't broken any laws. If a person is being detained/arrested, they have a right to know why.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Right. So, we'll add "summation" and "paraphrasing" to the list.


Translation: No. I have never unambiguously acknowledged police doing wrong.

Do you offer the same qualifications and benefits-of-the-doubt when discussing or considering accused criminals?

When you're done putting words in my mouth, maybe we can have a rational discussion. Until then, though, I'm done talking to you. I like good respectful debate, something you can't seem to manage.

 

[HorsieJuice]

I believe it gives me a much clearer perspective.

I know you believe it does, but from where I sit, it looks like too much deference.

It's a lot easier to see where police screwed up when you know how they're trained and what sort of information they receive on calls. It's not much, actually, and they're trained to go in expecting anything, because anything is usually what happens.

That's fine - and if you want to make the case that the blame in this situation falls more on the training than on the officer who initiated the assault, I could be persuaded of that. But either way, the fault lies with the PD, not Lollie.

But, his actions throughout ended up warranting the tasing as far as I'm concerned.

What exactly did he do that warranted tasing?

Again, as a victim of domestic violence, the two situations DO NOT compare. Those words make me physically ill.

They make you ill, because you can't see your own bias. No one is trying to diminish the severity of domestic violence - we're just trying to draw a parallel to it. What you're doing with these cops would be analogous to me looking at the Ray Rice situation and justifying his actions because I sympathize with him - I've got a psycho ex who would go crazy like his fiance did, and I can totally understand wanting to smack her.

But doing that is wrong and unjustified no matter how belligerent my ex or his fiance got. Just like how tasing Lollie was unjustified no matter how agitated he got.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I know you believe it does, but from where I sit, it looks like too much deference.

I am rarely handed a situation where cops were SO wrong and it was SO clear. When I am, I have made such statements - and I will admit there haven't been any for me lately. I don't blindly side with cops nor do I blindly side with suspects/victims.

That's fine - and if you want to make the case that the blame in this situation falls more on the training than on the officer who initiated the assault, I could be persuaded of that. But either way, the fault lies with the PD, not Lollie.

I believe it rests with both. Would I be willing to say more of it rests on the cops (especially the secondary officers)? Perhaps. But again, even with the video and the snippets, I don't have enough to make a judgment. I have no clue what the security guard told the police.

What exactly did he do that warranted tasing?

He refused to do what they were telling him. Basically, they were telling him he was under arrest and he needed to put his hands behind his back. He refused. At some point in time, that becomes resisting arrest. Based on the training I received (granted, it's been a number of years) the cops were pretty patient in waiting to rein this guy in to get him to comply.

They make you ill, because you can't see your own bias. No one is trying to diminish the severity of domestic violence - we're just trying to draw a parallel to it. What you're doing with these cops would be analogous to me looking at the Ray Rice situation and justifying his actions because I sympathize with him - I've got a psycho ex who would go crazy like his fiance did, and I can totally understand wanting to smack her.

But doing that is wrong and unjustified no matter how belligerent my ex or his fiance got. Just like how tasing Lollie was unjustified no matter how agitated he got.

No, the situation is NOT parallel. This is not a case of domestic assault. This is a case of police trying to get a man to do as they asked him and the guy refused. The police were doing their job as it pertained to the information they had. That is not the same thing as domestic assault AT ALL.

 

[Armoured]

When you're done putting words in my mouth, maybe we can have a rational discussion. Until then, though, I'm done talking to you. I like good respectful debate, something you can't seem to manage.

This seems your default response to anyone who says anything you can't respond to.

Is questioning someone's Catholicism "respectful", or is this another of those "do as I say, not as I do" things?

 

[HorsieJuice]

He refused to do what they were telling him. Basically, they were telling him he was under arrest and he needed to put his hands behind his back. He refused.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE GROUNDS TO ARREST HIM. THAT'S THE POINT! The 2nd/3rd officer (the one on the right) walked up to Lollie, grabbed his arm, and when Lollie asked him to "Please don't touch me," the officer responded with, "Well, you're going to jail then."

If anyone needs a refresher, here's the video again:
Chris Lollie tazed and taken to jail for sitting in public area - YouTube

At some point in time, that becomes resisting arrest.

It was an illegal, unwarranted arrest. If I tried to arrest you for no reason, I'd be guilty of kidnapping. Being in possession of a gun, a badge, and a funny hat doesn't give someone license to assault and arrest people without cause.

The ACLU guidelines for this situation that you posted earlier are not about your rights - they're about how to keep from getting shot or tased.

Based on the training I received (granted, it's been a number of years) the cops were pretty patient in waiting to rein this guy in to get him to comply.

If they'd had justification to rein him in, you'd have a point. But they didn't.

No, the situation is NOT parallel. This is not a case of domestic assault. This is a case of police trying to get a man to do as they asked him and the guy refused.

BECAUSE THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO FORCE HIM TO COMPLY!

The police were doing their job as it pertained to the information they had.

If the 2nd cop didn't have enough information to keep things calm, then he should've taken a few seconds to get up to speed before assaulting a citizen. What he did by walking up to someone and saying "you're going to jail" was lazy and indicative of someone on a power trip or someone who is lousy at their job.

That is not the same thing as domestic assault AT ALL.

You're blaming the victim - that's where the comparison is being made.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This seems your default response to anyone who says anything you can't respond to.

Is questioning someone's Catholicism "respectful", or is this another of those "do as I say, not as I do" things?

Oh I could respond to you. I'm just choosing not to. It's only my default answer when I get tired of people putting words in my mouth and generally being unable to answer me respectfully.

I didn't question your Catholicism. I questioned how your personal beliefs square up with Catholicism. There's a rather large difference there, but nice try at turning this around on me.