Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
> Barbara Sullivan made a knit cap for me. She knitted it in pinks and browns and blues and oranges and lime green. No one has a hat like this.
Yeah, dude — I'm looking at your photo right now and it definitely looks like a generic knit cap. It's completely reasonable that when someone hears a detail "knit cap" and then sees you, it clicks.
> If you are wondering why people don’t go with the police, I hope this explains it for you.
No. It doesn't, at all. Nothing in behaviour of this police officers even hinted of a wrong attitude. The "white woman" wouldn't "decide" if you're a criminal or not: she would give testimony. This attitude of "resisting arrest" would seem paranoid on it's own; it seems even more paranoid and insane in context of this story.
By the way, did any officer actually tell him that a victim was white? Or is it just what he automatically thought?
If I would go through something like that, I would be glad that police is doing it's job.
It wasn't about this one interaction, it's about the relationship that police have with black people, and vice-versa.
If you are white, your expectation is that in this situation the cops would have taken you to the victim, she would have said it wasn't you, and you'd go on with your day.
This man's expectation, as a black man being questioned by the police, was that he has a 50/50 chance of being falsely accused; that the woman who was going to give this testimony might just see "black man" and say "that's him officer". In the article, this college professor was so sure of that that he was going to resist arrest!.
It's not about this one interaction, it's about the culture of fear we have in this country between cops and black people. You're not supposed to figure out these particular cops did wrong in this particular encounter - you're supposed to empathize and understand what's generally happening for/to people in different circumstances than yourself, and hopefully have an impact on changing that over time.
>It wasn't about this one interaction, it's about the relationship that police have with black people, and vice-versa.
I agree. The OP does a great job of capturing the emotions of the moment. Despite this, many commenters here fail to entire context of the situation beyond the legalities. Maybe one reason why people still deny systematic racism exist is it really takes a person to experience it in first-hand to truly understand.
My expectation is that if police transport a suspect anywhere, that is an arrest which must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the suspect had committed a crime.
Now, I don't know how Boston classifies "try to break into a woman's house", but it looks like my web search in the General Laws of Massachusetts brings up part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 18.[0] Maybe IV I 265 18C [1] if there was someone inside the house.
Based on it being daytime, and the quoted statement from the cop including the words "try to break into" rather than "inside", it would appear that no crime actually occurred. So the cops circulated a vague description of an average-height, average-weight, typically-dressed Bostonian male as a suspect for a nonexistent crime.
The Internet Tough Guys aside, the author did make a mistake in answering police questions. It should have gone something like this:
Cop: Hey my man.
SL: Yes?
Cop: Where are you coming from?
SL: Am I free to go?
Cop: No.
SL: Am I under arrest?
Cop: Not yet.
SL: Why am I being detained?
Cop: We had someone matching your description just try to break into a woman’s house.
SL: [remains silent]
Cop: You fit the description: Black male, knit hat, puffy coat. Do you have identification?
SL: My name is Steve Locke. I live at XXXXX, in Dedham.
Cop: No, no, no, do you have a photo ID card?
SL: I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel.
At this point, he gets arrested, not for breaking and entering, but for "contempt of cop"--probably even "failure to identify". He beats the rap, but does not beat the ride. He later sues the city, and eventually accepts a $75000 settlement, which isn't bad for enduring one very stressful day and some PTSD.
The bystanders made a mistake in not whipping out their cameras to film the incident.
But that ideal conversation does not happen when you are dropped into a stressful situation with no notice. While you're thinking about burritos, an armed man confronts you and informs you that you are a suspect in a crime. Instead of thinking about how to resist police corruption, you're thinking about not getting killed in the next ten minutes. It doesn't matter if you know, rationally, that you have the right to not get murdered by cops, if you also know in your fluttering intestines that Eric Garner and Freddy Grey theoretically had the same right.
Did you read to the end of the post? No one can actually follow the ITG script.
Maybe if you're a professional lawyer. Everyone else will screw it up somewhere. Following it closely requires an attitude regarding cops somewhere between "Officer Friendly is only here to help" and "these pigs might kill me". That zone on the spectrum for "these guys are cleverly trying to hamstring my lawyer before the trial" is razor thin.
Those on one side will cooperate because they earnestly believe that the innocent do not get punished. Those on the other will cooperate because they believe that resistance is futile in the face of overwhelming force without any form of restraint. The ITG stance is pretty much exclusively held by people who will probably never have the opportunity to try it out on real cops.
Everybody out there in the real world formulates their strategy based on their prior experiences with real cops, rather than activist videos.
> Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
I can't point to anything the officers did 'wrong'. The tragedy of the piece is that the author brings two sets of prejudices to the encounter that really strongly negatively affect him and his perception of the treatment he received:
1) He's special, obviously not a criminal and the cops should know that
2) He's persecuted because of his race.
Neither of these things are objectively true from the content of the article, but the fear he experienced is real.
I can understand what caused that fear - the constant drip of police abuses occurring to people throughout the US, but it's still a sad state of affairs when a man must fear the police in this way.
It's also disheartening to see him take up such a self-involved perspective. The author entirely fails to understand the motives of anyone other than himself and instead ascribes a set of his own prejudices upon the action of others. Far from simply highlighting the prejudice he perceives he endured, he's actually revealed himself as guilty of the exact same charge whilst simultaneously lambasting those for not understanding his motives.
I wonder if this 'victim mentality' is justified given the abuses certain demographics do suffer, but I also wonder if it doesn't also fan the flames of discontent, distrust and ultimately lead to a worsening of relations between civilian and police. If all encounters have this undertone of anger, arrogance and persecution it's no wonder casual encounters can regularly devolve into conflict.
They did nothing wrong. That's also not the point. The point is this guy feared for his life and that's the state of things for a black male in this country. To stand there and hope/pray people stay around to witness a situation you are helpless in is pretty scary.
> Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
Preparing to draw their guns was probably the first thing. If you want to make someone afraid for their life, prepare the tool you can use to end it.
The second is probably the corralling of the gentleman by multiple officers.
We know that Police officers are told that their primary goal is to "get home at night". We know that they regarded this gentleman as a threat; his intelligent handling of the situation when frightened for his life is probably the one thing that saved him. "May I reach for my id" instead of just grabbing for it. Removing his hands from his pockets... it's not hard to see how this could have gone very, very wrong.
> If you want to make someone afraid for their life, prepare the tool you can use to end it.
If you want to make someone afraid for their life, second guess them every time they prepare the tool they can use to save it. Remember, it is not just black people getting shot out there.
So here we get to the crux of the issue – the author very clearly didn't see it as a fine interaction. You see it as a fine interaction.
That means one of two things – 1)The Author is completely off base or 2)You don't understand why it's legitimate for the author to feel that it wasn't an okay interaction. (Or, I guess, 3 - Some middle ground between the two)
It's easy to say the other side is just wrong when you don't agree with it. It's more of a challenge to say they're not completely off base and that we don't understand their experience, and then try to find understanding, try to make sense of what might not make sense at first.
The thing is, if you take the first path, it doesn't do anything constructive. You've got your side, they've got theirs and the conflict will go on. If, instead, you try to understand where they're coming from, it might make it easier to bridge gaps and find common ground. Worst case, you decide you were right to begin with... but, in my experience, there's often something to be learned from every person... unless you out and out think they're lying.
I understand where he is coming from and why he should feel afraid, but luckily in this case nothing from the cops was inappropriate.
To the posters here suggesting they just take his address down (which he said was incorrect anyway) and let him go and sort out the details later isn't a realistic or correct solution.
Why isn't that a realistic or correct solution? If you're going to make that assertion, you need to back it up with an argument, otherwise you're simply offering an opinion. While that's all well and good, it's not really informative or a productive contribution to this discussion.
If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.
Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.
> If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.
The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do.
I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.
Can someone point me to what exactly did police officers do wrong in this story?
> Barbara Sullivan made a knit cap for me. She knitted it in pinks and browns and blues and oranges and lime green. No one has a hat like this.
Yeah, dude — I'm looking at your photo right now and it definitely looks like a generic knit cap. It's completely reasonable that when someone hears a detail "knit cap" and then sees you, it clicks.
> If you are wondering why people don’t go with the police, I hope this explains it for you.
No. It doesn't, at all. Nothing in behaviour of this police officers even hinted of a wrong attitude. The "white woman" wouldn't "decide" if you're a criminal or not: she would give testimony. This attitude of "resisting arrest" would seem paranoid on it's own; it seems even more paranoid and insane in context of this story.
By the way, did any officer actually tell him that a victim was white? Or is it just what he automatically thought?
If I would go through something like that, I would be glad that police is doing it's job.