• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU: Black man detained while moving into own Kansas home

trouble13 said:
Yeah watch him go in the fromt pretending to be moving in then sneaking away out the back to get away. You would not make a very good cop.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, is it your position that the police should detain and question ANYONE that they see going into their own house?
 
trouble13 said:
Imagine if your a crook robbing a home. You see headlights coming down the street so you change direction from walking from the the house to the van, to the opposite, from the can toward the house. Making it appear that your unloading the van.

You see its a cop observing your activities so you calmy enter the home through the front door as if your moving in. Then while the cop is sitting outside waiting to see if your gonna come out for the next item out of the van, you sneak out the backdoor and get away.

Congradulations to that cops steller police work. Crook got away but whats really important was accomplished. Nobody inconveinced a black man acting suspiciouly and we suceeded in not feeding his persecution paranoia. After all thats way more important than getting criminals off the street.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's a very good scenario.

Unfortunately it credits the "average burglar" with a confidence and intelligence level that they simply don't have.

PS - Your average solitary burglar does NOT drive a "moving van".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, is it your position that the police should detain and question ANYONE that they see going into their own house?
Click to expand...

I would want them, at 4am, when this happened, to at least VERIFY that it's the person's house....I've moved a lot in my life, I've never moved at 4am,

And again, how do the police KNOW whose house it is?
 
Grand Mal said:
The question of 'probable cause' needs looking into. If there wasn't enough probable cause to cuff the guy, sounds like assault to me.
Click to expand...

Does something like


"Acting on what he, at the time, honestly believed to be sufficient evidence to give him probable cause, Officer __[fill in the blank]__, in accordance his training and complying with departmental policies and procedures, identified himself to the Complainant and requested that the Complainant provide sufficient information to establish that the Complainant's activities were lawful. This matter has been fully investigated by the Police Conduct Review Board and it has been determined that no further action is required." - Statement issued by the Chief of the __[fill in the blank]__ Police Department.
​

sound like it might be familiar?
 
3leftsdoo said:
Wrap the thread, we have the correct answer.

(Though I would add that handcuffing those who are not under arrest is often unacceptable, and that this now commonplace procedure needs to change.)
Click to expand...

The minute that a person is handcuffed (well, by the police, at any rate - those other times we don't talk about on a family-friendly forum) they ARE "under arrest" REGARDLESS of the utterance of some "magic words".
 
PTF said:
Police are just doing their job with caution. It was a judgment call that's all.
Click to expand...

And when the cops lied to him regarding burglaries in the neighborhood to justify their behavior, they were just doing their job. And when they parked directly across from his house for weeks they were just doing their jobs. And when they refused to allow him to file a complaint, they were just doing their jobs.

No, these cops were looking for this guy to give them the slightest provocation. Unfortunately for them, he did not.

This Marine vet deserved better.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The minute that a person is handcuffed (well, by the police, at any rate - those other times we don't talk about on a family-friendly forum) they ARE "under arrest" REGARDLESS of the utterance of some "magic words".
Click to expand...

No they aren't....cmon man....be honest.
 
sjmay said:
Placing them in handcuffs is to secure the scene, nothing more nothing less
Click to expand...

Actually handcuffing someone is ARRESTING them.

On the other hand, I suppose that your position would support handcuffing someone if the police officer saw them about to enter a car that was parked at an expired parking meter, because the police officer was "only securing the scene". And, of course, the same would apply to jaywalking or littering.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually handcuffing someone is ARRESTING them.

On the other hand, I suppose that your position would support handcuffing someone if the police officer saw them about to enter a car that was parked at an expired parking meter, because the police officer was "only securing the scene". And, of course, the same would apply to jaywalking or littering.
Click to expand...

You are simply factually WRONG.

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You’ve Been Arrested or Simply Detained | Nolo

Try again.
 
The Mark said:
He told them the paperwork was in the house, but I don't know that he gave them permission to enter his house.

And if they did so without his permission what is their legal justification for doing so?
Click to expand...

Does something like


"While investigating what appeared to be a felony burglary in progress, Officer __[fill in the blank]__ received information that documents relevant to his investigation were located __[fill in the blank]__. In order to preserve potential evidence from possible loss or destruction, and acting on what he, at the time, honestly believed to be sufficient evidence to give him probable cause with respect to a potential felony in progress, Officer __[fill in the blank]__, in accordance his training and complying with departmental policies and procedures, identified himself to the Complainant and requested that the Complainant provide sufficient information to establish that the Complainant's activities were lawful. This matter has been fully investigated by the Police Conduct Review Board and it has been determined that no further action is required." - Statement issued by the Chief of the __[fill in the blank]__ Police Department.
​

sound like it might be familiar?
 
I had a similar situation a few years back. I left the house with the family to go to a nearby restaurant. For some reason, the burglar alarm went off while we were at the restaurant. The alarm company called me on my cell phone and informed me that the alarm was tripped. They also notified the police. I returned to the house before the police arrived. My search revealed no break-in.

I was in the process of resetting the alarm when the police arrived.

They didn't handcuff me. They simply asked me a few routine questions and they wanted to see some I.D. showing this was my address.

The police were cautious, courteous, and professional. But then, I'm white.
 
Risky Thicket said:
My personal white guy opinion is that in general America's police have become too militarized. As a result minorities knew it first and feel it more.
Click to expand...

You might find Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" (400 pages, PublicAffairs; Reprint edition [Aug. 26 2014], ISBN-10: 1610394577 /ISBN-13: 978-1610394574) interesting.

 
JasperL said:
... When it walks and quacks like a duck......
Click to expand...

The appropriate thing to do is to ensure that the discussion is limited to whether it is a Merganser or a Muscovy. Absolutely no attention should be paid to whether it is a duck.

Right?
 
sjmay said:
I would want them, at 4am, when this happened, to at least VERIFY that it's the person's house....I've moved a lot in my life, I've never moved at 4am,

And again, how do the police KNOW whose house it is?
Click to expand...

So, your position is that if I am coming home at 0400 the police should handcuff me and require that I provide proof that I live in the house with the garage door that I have just opened with my remote?

I mean, I might have stolen the remote and putting my car into the garage would allow me to load it up with booty completely free of observation - wouldn't it?

How about 0300? Or maybe 0200? What about 0100? Is midnight OK? Hey, it's pretty dark at 2300. And who would be going into a house at 1500 except some burglar?

I'm sorry, but I must reject your contention that the police have, at any time of the day or night, the absolute right to arrest (which is what happens the minute they put handcuffs on) me, or even to detain me simply because the police officer feels like doing so. Possibly that is YOUR definition of "The Land of the Free", but it sure isn't mine.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, your position is that if I am coming home at 0400 the police should handcuff me and require that I provide proof that I live in the house with the garage door that I have just opened with my remote?

I mean, I might have stolen the remote and putting my car into the garage would allow me to load it up with booty completely free of observation - wouldn't it?

How about 0300? Or maybe 0200? What about 0100? Is midnight OK? Hey, it's pretty dark at 2300. And who would be going into a house at 1500 except some burglar?

I'm sorry, but I must reject your contention that the police have, at any time of the day or night, the absolute right to arrest (which is what happens the minute they put handcuffs on) me, or even to detain me simply because the police officer feels like doing so. Possibly that is YOUR definition of "The Land of the Free", but it sure isn't mine.
Click to expand...

First of all, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE HANDCUFFS, Educate yourself on that please.

Second of all, again, HOW are the police supposed to AUTOMATICALLY KNOW (which is what you seem to want to happen) whose house it is?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
I had a similar situation a few years back. I left the house with the family to go to a nearby restaurant. For some reason, the burglar alarm went off while we were at the restaurant. The alarm company called me on my cell phone and informed me that the alarm was tripped. They also notified the police. I returned to the house before the police arrived. My search revealed no break-in.

I was in the process of resetting the alarm when the police arrived.

They didn't handcuff me. They simply asked me a few routine questions and they wanted to see some I.D. showing this was my address.

The police were cautious, courteous, and professional. But then, I'm white.
Click to expand...

The police in the case presented by this thread were also cautious, courteous, and professional. There is nothing wrong with what initially happened (keep reading), and actually they were calm and clear while they were investigating the situation. You can hear one of the police officers say "it does look like someone is moving in" once they get into the house. It shows that the reason for their action was a suspicion of burglary and not racial profiling, because they genuinely thought a burglary might be happening, and were able to change their minds rapidly after seeing evidence of a move-in. It shows that the police officers who came to the scene were probably not the ones who drove by earlier when he started moving in. They get the paperwork and say "I don't know if that's his name." Then they go out, the tape doesn't show it, but presumably they verify that it was indeed his name, and they take out the handcuffs and apologize.

The man also reacted very calmly and was compliant with all the requests by police, and even had some nice words, like "that's very comforting" when they said there were burglaries in the area and that's why they investigated.

So, the above doesn't seem wrong at all. How did they know he was taking the TV into the home and not the other way around? They couldn't, because a burglar might have changed direction, to appear innocent, the moment he saw the police cruiser approaching. How did they know the house was his? They couldn't, unless they investigated, which is what they did, and they rapidly changed their minds and apologized.

-------------

This said, what is wrong?

One, the fact that they lied about a string of burglaries. It does hint at some guilt. If they had to lie, maybe deep inside their reasons for the investigation were less than ideal. They could perfectly have skipped that, and said, "Sir, we had no way of knowing if you were moving the TV in or out, and we had no way of knowing if the house was yours or not. We were just doing our job of protecting the law-abiding public, and now that we know you're one the law-abiding ones, we'll be happy to protect you too, if at some point a burglar comes to your house. We are sorry for the inconvenience but it happens, when we are trying to do our job." No need to lie.

Two, the alleged harassment after the fact.

Three, the attempt to prevent him from filing a complaint.

If these things are true, they are definitely wrong.

I don't know if they got permission to enter the house or not. Most likely the guy did ask them to go inside and look for the paperwork. I don't see a huge problem with that part. Even if he did not give them permission, at that point they didn't know whether or not he was the lawful owner, and they'd have to go in and investigate the scene anyway (what if a burglary were actually happening and there was an accomplice inside?). It seems like normal police work, to go in (through an open door, no less, no breaking required).

----------

Some people questioned the fact that it took him two months to complain. Apparently not; he had tried to complain and it was prevented. But even if he took two months, so what? Maybe he was considering his options, maybe he was hiring a lawyer which might take time - consider referrals, see what a lawyer would charge, consult reviews written about the lawyer, set an appointment, go discuss options with the lawyer, then finally file a complaint. This can easily take two months. First of all, the man might be afraid of confronting the police, and maybe took his time deciding to take action. Nothing wrong with the 2-month delay. Also, maybe initially he didn't think of complaining as he accepted the police's lie, but later, with the harassment, he decided to complain.

So, in summary - the police seem to be courteous and professional during the initial incident, and there is nothing wrong with investigating, securing the scene, and then acting upon the result of the investigation (that is, that no crime was in process). There is nothing that screams racism there. There is nothing wrong with taking two months to complain, either. But the subsequent harassment and attempt to prevent a complaint, if true, are definitely wrong.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
No they aren't....cmon man....be honest.
Click to expand...

Try looking at some of the jurisprudence and you will find that United States v. Bullock (632 F.3d 1004 [7th Cir. 2011]) is an "outlier" and does NOT stand for the proposition that being handcuffed does NOT constitute an arrest (or detention).
 
sjmay said:
You are simply factually WRONG.

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You’ve Been Arrested or Simply Detained | Nolo

Try again.
Click to expand...

From your link


If a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have considered the police’s behavior to constitute the kind of restraint that’s typical of formal arrest, then an arrest has occurred. Some courts phrase the issue as depending on whether, after brief questioning, a reasonable innocent person would have felt free to leave—if not, there’s been an arrest. (Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2013).)
​

Try reading your own evidence.
 
sjmay said:
Why does it need to change? It's absolutely practical.
Click to expand...

Maybe citizens could be assigned handcuffs when they turn 12, and be ready to have them slapped on them for any reason at any time.

That would save the poor cops from having to lug that extra metal around.

And it would be a crime not to have your handcuffs available to the cops to shackle you.

We need a society which permits itself to be handcuffed 24/7, dammit!

:stop:
 
sjmay said:
First of all, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE HANDCUFFS, Educate yourself on that please.

Second of all, again, HOW are the police supposed to AUTOMATICALLY KNOW (which is what you seem to want to happen) whose house it is?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I expect that the police will ask me and not arrest me or put me in handcuffs so that they can "secure the scene".

But, then again, I suspect that you might possibly live in a metropolitan area of a whole lot more than 2,500,000 people and so have a much more serious crime problem than I do in the metropolitan area with a 2,500,000 population that I live in.

PS - I have practised law, have you?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually handcuffing someone is ARRESTING them.

On the other hand, I suppose that your position would support handcuffing someone if the police officer saw them about to enter a car that was parked at an expired parking meter, because the police officer was "only securing the scene". And, of course, the same would apply to jaywalking or littering.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not arresting them if they aren't under arrest.

And it needs to stop; we seem to agree on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom