Caught walking while Black

[GMDino]

(11-07-2015, 02:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's fine, as long as you realize your position is one based on complete ignorance of how the job of a peace officer is, and should be, conducted.  I know a fair amount about a fair amount, but when it comes to issues regarding taxes I completely defer to Matt.  As his job deals with taxes and the laws regarding taxes I'd look foolish if I claimed to know more about it's workings than he does.  This isn't an argument over a subjective issue like the level of force used in an encounter, this is a basic procedure issue.  You always establish someone's identity when you contact them in an official capacity.  

Man I'm glad you came along to tell everyone who disagreed they are completely ignorant on the subject.  We almost had a decent discussion going on.  Thanks.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who used the word "demand" counselor?  Oh that's right, you did.  Objection overruled.

I used the word "demand" to educate every here on there rights.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just want to play silly little "name-calling" games.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Were you engaged in a behavior that could result in a citation in this instance?  The answer would be no.  Was the woman in OP engaged in a behavior that could result in a citation?  The answer would be yes.  I trust further explanation of my point is unnecessary.

It is highly questionable if she could be cited for just walking in the road.  Obstructing traffic in Tennessee law defines obstruction as "to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or potentially injurious to persons or property".  

Just walking down the road usually does not qualify.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-07-2015, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is highly questionable if she could be cited for just walking in the road.  Obstructing traffic in Tennessee law defines obstruction as "to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or potentially injurious to persons or property".  

Just walking down the road usually does not qualify.

Did you even read the story fred? 

Quote:My officers, a field training officer and his recruit, observed Ms. Bland walking in the roadway wearing earbuds and unaware that there was a pickup truck directly behind her that had to almost come to a complete stop to avoid hitting her.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, you guarantee?  I'd expect better language from a person in the legal profession.  You could say you strongly suspect that the officer did so but you absolutely cannot say you guarantee it.  Unless you're the omniscient god we keep talking about around here.  Are you that god?

 
Oh the irony

(11-07-2015, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: She can have whatever opinion she wants.  In this case her opinion is wrong.

Thanks for proving the mindset of many policeman.  No one else is allowed to be 100% knowledgeable of something except another police officer when giving his opinion of why another police officer did something.  

Please tell us how you know for sure that the officer in this case would have also demanded ID from a white lady in the same neighborhood.  Because i know for sure that I have come in contact with police when they did not request my ID.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2015, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Man I'm glad you came along to tell everyone who disagreed they are completely ignorant on the subject.  We almost had a decent discussion going on.  Thanks.

I'm very sorry.   Sorry that the voice of experience and real world application came along and ruined your speculation festival. 

(11-07-2015, 04:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I used the word "demand" to educate every here on there rights.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just want to play silly little "name-calling" games.

No, you used the word demand because it's inflammatory and you thought it helped you prove your point.  It's a common trick by lawyers and you got caught using it.  As for the "name calling" you'll have to point out that bit because I missed it.  Unless your deflecting because you got caught up, which seems to be the case, in which event don't bother.

(11-07-2015, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is highly questionable if she could be cited for just walking in the road.  Obstructing traffic in Tennessee law defines obstruction as "to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or potentially injurious to persons or property".  

Just walking down the road usually does not qualify.

Chortle, says the man who clearly hasn't read the thread.  She could be cited and wasn't.  Maybe you can tell us more definitively using the same godlike powers that you displayed when you "guaranteed' that the police searched Mike's car.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 05:02 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Did you even read the story fred? 

Yes I did.  And I know that having to slow to pass a person walking down the road does not rise to the level of "obstructing traffic" under Tennessee law.  The law may be different there, but I know for sure that in all my years as a criminal defense attorney I have never once seen a person cited into court for obstructing traffic for just walking in the road.   Especially when the driver did not even have to stop to pass her.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-07-2015, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I did.  And I know that having to slow to pass a person walking down the road does not rise to the level of "obstructing traffic" under Tennessee law.  The law may be different there, but I know for sure that in all my years as a criminal defense attorney I have never once seen a person cited into court for obstructing traffic for just walking in the road.   Especially when the driver did not even have to stop to pass her.

So basically just willfully ignoring the facts. Gotcha. Same old same old here.
Bye. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2015, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
Thanks for proving the mindset of many policeman.  No one else is allowed to be 100% knowledgeable of something except another police officer when giving his opinion of why another police officer did something.

Other people can be knowledgeable to be sure.  I just don't see one of those people in this thread. 

Quote:Please tell us how you know for sure that the officer in this case would have also demanded ID from a white lady in the same neighborhood.  Because i know for sure that I have come in contact with police when they did not request my ID.

I can't "guarantee" things of that nature in the way you can.  I can say that anytime someone could be cited it is common practice to request ID.  Whether the citation is issued or not is another issue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2015, 05:12 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: So basically just willfully ignoring the facts. Gotcha. Same old same old here.
Bye. 

Fred is a mystery to me at times.  He can be very erudite and persuasive in one post and completely full of shit in another.  I do concur, especially as it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the internets, that he has a staggering inability to admit and own it when he's proven wrong.  I find it's a common character flaw for many in the legal profession.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 05:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you used the word demand because it's inflammatory and you thought it helped you prove your point.  It's a common trick by lawyers and you got caught using it.  As for the "name calling" you'll have to point out that bit because I missed it.  Unless your deflecting because you got caught up, which seems to be the case, in which event don't bother.

I used the word demand because that is the language in the law.  Of course an officer is entitled to request ID whenever he wants.  But the law says he has no recourse if the person refuses.  That is why i use the wortd "demand" instead of "request".  The difference between those to words is crucial to understanding the law.

Do you want to tell everyone I am correct about this or do you want to just keep up a childish game of name calling.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred is a mystery to me at times.  He can be very erudite and persuasive in one post and completely full of shit in another.  I do concur, especially as it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the internets, that he has a staggering inability to admit and own it when he's proven wrong.  I find it's a common character flaw for many in the legal profession.

I have no issue with some of the debate in this thread, but to say she wasn't in anyway violating rules is just baiting for an argument for arguments sake. 
She was clearly in violation of the rules in that North Texas town, (which btw, isn't Tennessee so that's irrelevant) 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2015, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I did.  And I know that having to slow to pass a person walking down the road does not rise to the level of "obstructing traffic" under Tennessee law.  The law may be different there, but I know for sure that in all my years as a criminal defense attorney I have never once seen a person cited into court for obstructing traffic for just walking in the road.   Especially when the driver did not even have to stop to pass her.

How about jaywalking?  I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a pedestrian to be on the road unless they are crossing it at a legal crosswalk.  You can be cited for this.  Do they not have jaywalking in Tennessee?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2015, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I used the word demand because that is the language in the law.  Of course an officer is entitled to request ID whenever he wants.  But the law says he has no recourse if the person refuses.  That is why i use the wortd "demand" instead of "request".  The difference between those to words is crucial to understanding the law.

Do you want to tell everyone I am correct about this or do you want to just keep up a childish game of name calling.

But you just used the word "request" yourself.  "Can I see your ID?" is a request.  "Show me your ID" is a demand.  Again, you'll have to produce evidence of the "name calling" in my responses to you.  This is my second request for such proof, don't make me demand it!

(11-07-2015, 05:16 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I have no issue with some of the debate in this thread, but to say she wasn't in anyway violating rules is just baiting for an argument for arguments sake. 
She was clearly in violation of the rules in that North Texas town, (which btw, isn't Tennessee so that's irrelevant) 

I have no issue with debate either.  In this case the only person who truly knows if race was a factor in this woman's stop is the officer who initiated it.  Everything else is speculation.  Of course the evidence of how she was talked to and the fact that the police let her go without a citation seems to indicate that the officers involved were simply doing their job and are not secret racists.

[Belsnickel]

(11-07-2015, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is highly questionable if she could be cited for just walking in the road.  Obstructing traffic in Tennessee law defines obstruction as "to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or potentially injurious to persons or property".  

Just walking down the road usually does not qualify.

Around these parts you can. You are not supposed to walk in the road, according to the law, unless there is no alternative. You can be ticketed for it.

[GMDino]

(11-07-2015, 05:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm very sorry.   Sorry that the voice of experience and real world application came along and ruined your speculation festival. 

Odd, I was simply talking about public relations and whether asking for the ID was "silly".  

(11-05-2015, 01:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Certainly looks that way.

That's why I don't understand the post she made.  If she had a history of being stopped maybe she comes at it with a personal bias?  I don't know the answer to that question.

(11-06-2015, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20151028-dorothy-bland-i-was-caught-walking-while-black.ece#commentsDiv



She clearly over-reacted.  I just think the idea of having to produce ID for it is silly.  Tell them to get on the sidewalk and move along. 

(11-06-2015, 11:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: To me its just good public relations.  Other than walking in the road did this lady seem suspicious?  No.  Be pleasant with the citizen...be pleasant with the officer.  No story.

(11-06-2015, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Agree to disagree.

I was certainly "speculating" there.

Thanks for your help...again.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-07-2015, 06:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Around these parts you can. You are not supposed to walk in the road, according to the law, unless there is no alternative. You can be ticketed for it.

Also, slowing to a near stop to avoid hitting them would probably likely go as "render passage unreasonably inconvenient"

[Belsnickel]

(11-07-2015, 07:20 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Also, slowing to a near stop to avoid hitting them would probably likely go as "render passage unreasonably inconvenient"

I also looked up the Texas law. I don't know the area she was in, but if there was a sidewalk, then walking on the road is against the law in Texas as well.

[Rotobeast]

(11-07-2015, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other people can be knowledgeable to be sure.  I just don't see one of those people in this thread. 

You were not there, so you were making assumptions just like the rest of us.
I appreciate when you share your experiences with us, but this one was not of your own.
Also, yeah I have no law enforcement experience, but my father was a cop.
If you think someone even looks the slightest bit shady, you look for any opportunity to evaluate that person further.
It's just part of the game.
Next you'll tell me that you never carried a "drop gun".

(11-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred is a mystery to me at times.  He can be very erudite and persuasive in one post and completely full of shit in another.  I do concur, especially as it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the internets, that he has a staggering inability to admit and own it when he's proven wrong.  I find it's a common character flaw for many in the legal profession.

I have to tell you, he's admitting being wrong to me.
I respect any man that is willing to do that.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-07-2015, 07:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I also looked up the Texas law. I don't know the area she was in, but if there was a sidewalk, then walking on the road is against the law in Texas as well.

In the video it looks like both sides have them