• 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!

Ten-year-old Michael Thomas Jr. was handcuffed by several Chicago officers, accused of escaping jail

dirtpoorchris said:
So if i walk up to you and say "Are you a child molester??? Are the the child molester thats been walkign around here??" Isnt that me saying that you are a child molester?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's just you asking me.

Cops apprehending random black boys and asking them if they have guns and escaped from prison is racist.
Click to expand...

From what I saw, it wasn't a random apprehension...so it wasn't racist.
 
roguenuke said:
So a 10 year old who consciously steals from a store, threatening an adult, even going so far as to shoot someone, should not be held accountable for those actions? Really? I am not saying that that is what happened here at all. This is only based on this statement you made.

I do not agree with this. My sons at 9 and 10 both know that it would be wrong to steal from other people. They both know that even hitting someone is wrong, let alone shooting them. While I think it is important to gain some knowledge on each particular kid's level of realistic expectations and view of the situations, I also think it is wrong to set an age limit like that on accountability for crimes they commit. You are underestimating children based on a random age point that isn't even reasonable when you look at psychology and levels of comprehension in regards to their actions.
Click to expand...

But children have an issue with consequences etc. and there may be a situation in which a child needs to be put on house arrest or something like that if the situation is that bad but normally children under 12 are normally incapable of really understanding consequences of their actions. Ask doctor Phil or psychologists like him.

Not saying a child should get a free pass but jail and handcuffs should be the last option, not the standard option for 11 years or younger children.
 
faithful_servant said:
Maybe in Neverland, but here in the real world, but here in the real world, we understand that even children have a basic understanding of right and wrong.
Click to expand...

That is not a certainty if you believe experts in the field.
 
Quote...

" They accuse the kid of escaping juvinal detention and posessing a gun. (is this racist??) "

Anyone,no matter the age or race possessing a firearm and a escapee you take action. You don't offer him a Klondike bar...you tell him to put the gun down. Having a weapon is considered armed and dangerous.
 
Peter King said:
But children have an issue with consequences etc. and there may be a situation in which a child needs to be put on house arrest or something like that if the situation is that bad but normally children under 12 are normally incapable of really understanding consequences of their actions. Ask doctor Phil or psychologists like him.

Not saying a child should get a free pass but jail and handcuffs should be the last option, not the standard option for 11 years or younger children.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with charging them, treating them as a juvenile, but there still needs to be legal consequences for their actions. I also would love to see some actual mental health help given to juvenile offenders, emphasized in fact, because they are much more likely to benefit positively than even adult offenders.
 
Wow. Just Wow.

Ok, so if this happened to a white adult.

White adult can say. I choose not to identify myself. Have you witnessed me committing a crime. Am I free to go. I choose not to speak.

Doesn't matter if he fits a description, he has rights. These officers violated this kids rights. They should not be able to speak with a child without their parents present, as children are not aware of their rights in most cases and are liable to incriminate themselves in crimes they never even committed.

And everyone off on a tangent. If the 10 year old is doing wrong things it's ok.

This kid was playing in front of his grandmas house. And grown men, put him in cuffs to ask him questions. This is exactly why we have a constitution. You guys get that right. This is the reason.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Wow, poor kid.

They accuse the kid of escaping juvinal detention and posessing a gun. (is this racist??)

Maybe some of these cops really are secret racists....

This doesnt seem normal at all to me, to me it seems more like they are tormenting this kid on purpose and "treating him like a black person".

Click to expand...
Was it based on race, or other identify characteristics and behavior.
If it was based on those other factors, than no it was not racist.


dirtpoorchris said:
These cops should be fired for racism.
Click to expand...
WTF? What racism?


dirtpoorchris said:
My view is if a cop slaps cuffs on you then you are technically arrested.

And if they picked the wrong guy then it was wrongful arrest.

And this family has a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
No, they do not automatically have a lawsuit.
This detention was reasonable given the facts.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
Wow. Just Wow.

Ok, so if this happened to a white adult.

White adult can say. I choose not to identify myself. Have you witnessed me committing a crime. Am I free to go. I choose not to speak.

Doesn't matter if he fits a description, he has rights. These officers violated this kids rights. They should not be able to speak with a child without their parents present, as children are not aware of their rights in most cases and are liable to incriminate themselves in crimes they never even committed.

And everyone off on a tangent. If the 10 year old is doing wrong things it's ok.

This kid was playing in front of his grandmas house. And grown men, put him in cuffs to ask him questions. This is exactly why we have a constitution. You guys get that right. This is the reason.
Click to expand...
Simply no.
This person fit the description given and took off running.

It was reasonable for officers to detain and establish whether or not he was the individual sought.
 
Excon said:
Simply no.
This person fit the description given and took off running.

It was reasonable for officers to detain and establish whether or not he was the individual sought.
Click to expand...

The only way he fit the description was he was black. That's not enough probable cause. It was a black boy, there's a black boy, must be him. Doesn't fly.

They need to have witnessed him commit a crime, or have reasonable suspicion he committed a crime. Fitting a description of black and young. Is not a reasonable suspicion. And any investigation they have into his identity is voluntary on his part. He wouldn't know that because he's 10. Which is why police should never talk to children without a parent present. Especially black children, when the cops are looking to pin something on someone and they "fit the description"

Why do you hate the Constitution? What is so appealing about a Police State?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
The only way he fit the description was he was black. That's not enough probable cause. It was a black boy, there's a black boy, must be him. Doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
No.
Black, juvenile, as well as blue clothing was part of the description. He started running when they pulled up.
Of course it was reasonable to detain and establish whether or not he was the one wanted.


The Officer clearly explained that in the video of the incident.
Start @0:23
​



ThoughtEx. said:
They need to have witnessed him commit a crime, or have reasonable suspicion he committed a crime. Fitting a description of black and young. Is not a reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
No. Given the articulated facts they had reason to detain and ascertain. They did exactly that and released the individual. That's not racism and is not inappropriate.


ThoughtEx. said:
And any investigation they have into his identity is voluntary on his part. He wouldn't know that because he's 10. Which is why police should never talk to children without a parent present. Especially black children, when the cops are looking to pin something on someone and they "fit the description"
Click to expand...
So, according to you they have to talk only to the parents in all cases of reports of a juvenile with a gun after they detain a suspect. No, they do not. Nor should they.


ThoughtEx. said:
Why do you hate the Constitution? What is so appealing about a Police State?
Click to expand...
This is absurd commentary that you obviously made up to believe.
Why do you make bs up to believe?
 
Excon said:
No.
Black, juvenile, as well as blue clothing was part of the description. He started running when they pulled up.
Of course it was reasonable to detain and establish whether or not he was the one wanted.


The Officer clearly explained that in the video of the incident.
Start @0:23



No. Given the articulated facts they had reason to detain and ascertain. They did exactly that and released the individual. That's not racism and is not inappropriate.


So, according to you they have to talk only to the parents in all cases of reports of a juvenile with a gun after they detain a suspect. No, they do not. Nor should they.


This is absurd commentary that you obviously made up to believe.
Why do you make bs up to believe?
Click to expand...

Officer can explain whatever they want. They are not obligated to tell you the truth. And actually lie to you about when you should provide id.



Have you ever heard of First Amendment Auditors?





This one is a Captain.

So no, it doesn't matter if you fit a description. You do not have to identify yourself, or participate in their investigation. Because until they witness you violate a law, or have evidence that you have violated a law, your participation is entirely voluntary.

And many times, they themselves are ignorant of the law. Like most of the flippin time.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Officer can explain whatever they want. They are not obligated to tell you the truth. And actually lie to you about when you should provide id.

[video=youtube_share;taVIV-QauGs]https://youtu.be/taVIV-QauGs[video]

Have you ever heard of First Amendment Auditors?

[video=youtube_share;Eo_Ya0A5s3Y]https://youtu.be/Eo_Ya0A5s3Y[video]

[video=youtube;DQILm5DzJnI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQILm5DzJnI[video]

This one is a Captain.

So no, it doesn't matter if you fit a description. You do not have to identify yourself, or participate in their investigation. Because until they witness you violate a law, or have evidence that you have violated a law, your participation is entirely voluntary.

And many times, they themselves are ignorant of the law. Like most of the flippin time.
Click to expand...
None of these video have a damn thing to do with our prior discourse.

Your position on the actual topic is wrong. It was not racism and instead was a reasonable action taken by the Officer.
 
Excon said:
None of these video have a damn thing to do with our prior discourse.

Your position on the actual topic is wrong. It was not racism and instead was a reasonable action taken by the Officer.
Click to expand...

Really, the video about two gentlemen walking out of an area where an assault occurred, with no other people around, doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing? Because it seems like, that video is pretty pertinent. As those officers had more of a reason to suspect those two guys. Yet, they failed to obtain ID and was forced to move along. Of course if you had watched it, which you did not have enough time to do since I posted it. You would know that.

Another Excon fail.

Another video shows a man selling ammunition on the side of the road. And the cop comes in and says we have multiple calls coming in. He also fails to obtain id. And must walk away.

And then another video shows a guy walking into a police station and video taping them. Just because he can. And then refusing to ID and leave. And they also had to let him be.

All of those videos showed a stronger reason to id someone than fits the description of black in a blue shirt.

You don't have to talk to the police. That kid didn't have to talk to the police. He shouldn't have been put in cuffs. And those cops need to be fired.

And each video shows just how willing cops are to lie to you. They will tell you something that is not true.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
Really, the video about two gentlemen walking out of an area where an assault occurred, with no other people around, doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing? Because it seems like, that video is pretty pertinent. As those officers had more of a reason to suspect those two guys. Yet, they failed to obtain ID and was forced to move along. Of course if you had watched it, which you did not have enough time to do since I posted it. You would know that.
Click to expand...
Apparently you are not aware that our discourse was pertaining to one incident involving specific people. None of whom are in the other videos.


ThoughtEx. said:
Another Excon fail.
Click to expand...
Yes, your comments fail miserably, again.


ThoughtEx. said:
Another video shows a man selling ammunition on the side of the road. And the cop comes in and says we have multiple calls coming in. He also fails to obtain id. And must walk away.

And then another video shows a guy walking into a police station and video taping them. Just because he can. And then refusing to ID and leave. And they also had to let him be.
Click to expand...
All irrelevant to the specific we are discussing.



ThoughtEx. said:
All of those videos showed a stronger reason to id someone than fits the description of black in a blue shirt.
Click to expand...
No they do not. You apparently do not know of what you speak.


ThoughtEx. said:
You don't have to talk to the police.
Click to expand...
No one said anyone had to. So your comment is irrelevant.


ThoughtEx. said:
That kid didn't have to talk to the police.
Click to expand...
No one said he had to. So your comment is irrelevant.
Had he not though, he could have very well been taken down to the station to ID him to establish whether or not he was the juvenile they were looking for.


ThoughtEx. said:
He shouldn't have been put in cuffs. And those cops need to be fired.
Click to expand...
Yes he should have been put in cuffs to establish whether or not he was armed and whether or not he was the juvenile they were looking for.
And calling for them to be fired is absurdity.


ThoughtEx. said:
And each video shows just how willing cops are to lie to you. They will tell you something that is not true.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to this discussion. Factually they had a report of a Juvenile with a gun who was dressed in blue.
Can you show that isn't true?
 
Excon said:
Apparently you are not aware that our discourse was pertaining to one incident involving specific people. None of whom are in the other videos.


Yes, your comments fail miserably, again.


All irrelevant to the specific we are discussing.



No they do not. You apparently do not know of what you speak.


No one said anyone had to. So your comment is irrelevant.


No one said he had to. So your comment is irrelevant.
Had he not though, he could have very well been taken down to the station to ID him to establish whether or not he was the juvenile they were looking for.


Yes he should have been put in cuffs to establish whether or not he was armed and whether or not he was the juvenile they were looking for.
And calling for them to be fired is absurdity.


Irrelevant to this discussion. Factually they had a report of a Juvenile with a gun who was dressed in blue.
Can you show that isn't true?
Click to expand...

Straw man. The lie is that the boy had to cooperate with him at all. And no, they couldn't have taken them down to the station to id them. That was a lie, they would need to arrest them to do so, which would open them up to false arrest charges, and violate their immunity opening them up to civil lawsuits.

Which is why they didn't do it.

Fact of the matter is, soon as those cuffs went on that boy, they ****ed up. Even if you consider fitting a description as week as black and a blue shirt as reasonable suspicion for detainment. The fact is you can't put cuffs on them and then take them off. For questioning. Unless you have Probable Cause.

They did not have probable cause. They did not have that at all.

 
ThoughtEx. said:
Straw man.
Click to expand...
No. There is no strawman in what I stated.


ThoughtEx. said:
The lie is that the boy had to cooperate with him at all.
Click to expand...
Where are you coming up with this bs? No one said he had to cooperate.
Stop making up bs.


ThoughtEx. said:
And no, they couldn't have taken them down to the station to id them. That was a lie, they would need to arrest them to do so, which would open them up to false arrest charges, and violate their immunity opening them up to civil lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Had they not been able to identify him on the scene they most certainly could have taken him to the station (ie: juvenile detention) to id him.
Thinking that they would just release the unidentified juvenile who may or may not be the person they were looking for, is categorically absurd.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.


ThoughtEx. said:
Which is why they didn't do it.
Click to expand...
No. You are making things up to believe.
There was a female in the video claiming the juvenile belonged to them. Supposedly his Grandmother.
And we can see he was released to an adult male.


ThoughtEx. said:
Fact of the matter is, soon as those cuffs went on that boy, they ****ed up.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The fact of the matter is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
They can handcuff any detainee for their safety. A suspect who may be armed is a very valid reason.


ThoughtEx. said:
Even if you consider fitting a description as week as black and a blue shirt as reasonable suspicion for detainment. The fact is you can't put cuffs on them and then take them off. For questioning. Unless you have Probable Cause.
Click to expand...
You are leaving out the other relevant information that makes you absurdly wrong. It was the totality of the circumstances that lead to reasonable suspicion to determine if this was the wanted person or not. #1 juvenile, #2 black, #3 dressed in blue, 4. ran upon police arrival.
A: None of that makes it racist as you falsely claimed.
B: You simply do not know of what you speak.
As I originally said.
This person fit the description given and took off running.

It was reasonable for officers to detain and establish whether or not he was the individual sought.​
You haven't refuted that, nor could you.


ThoughtEx. said:
They did not have probable cause. They did not have that at all.
Click to expand...
They had reasonable suspicion to detain and cuff him. That is all they needed.
No Judge would look at the information they had, including his running upon the Officer's arrival, and say they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain and ascertain.
Nor would they be shocked about putting handcuff's on a person who may be armed.
 
Excon said:
No. There is no strawman in what I stated.


Where are you coming up with this bs? No one said he had to cooperate.
Stop making up bs.



Had they not been able to identify him on the scene they most certainly could have taken him to the station (ie: juvenile detention) to id him.
Thinking that they would just release the unidentified juvenile who may or may not be the person they were looking for, is categorically absurd.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.


No. You are making things up to believe.
There was a female in the video claiming the juvenile belonged to them. Supposedly his Grandmother.
And we can see he was released to an adult male.


Wrong. The fact of the matter is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
They can handcuff any detainee for their safety. A suspect who may be armed is a very valid reason.


You are leaving out the other relevant information that makes you absurdly wrong. It was the totality of the circumstances that lead to reasonable suspicion to determine if this was the wanted person or not. #1 juvenile, #2 black, #3 dressed in blue, 4. ran upon police arrival.
A: None of that makes it racist as you falsely claimed.
B: You simply do not know of what you speak.
As I originally said.
This person fit the description given and took off running.

It was reasonable for officers to detain and establish whether or not he was the individual sought.​
You haven't refuted that, nor could you.



They had reasonable suspicion to detain and cuff him. That is all they needed.
No Judge would look at the information they had, including his running upon the Officer's arrival, and say they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain and ascertain.
Nor would they be shocked about putting handcuff's on a person who may be armed.
Click to expand...

God, why do I bother Excon. It's always the same with you. Every single time. No matter what video evidence you have. No matter what the laws are. Whenever there is a black person mistreated, the police are completely without fault. Every single time. A statistical miracle. Racism is dead. Excon has proven to all of us, that we are don't really know what are rights are. And it doesn't matter what they are anyway, because the police would never ever abuse them. That's not what the police do. They've never done it, according to Excon. So let's all thank Excon for showing us the light. Cops shoot a 12 year old unarmed boy for playing in the park. Excon will explain to you, that it wasn't racism, they were right to shoot that boy. Cops beat an unarmed man to death in front of his family. Excon will explain to you exactly why that man had to die in front of his child. Cops chase down a 10 yo black kid and put him cuffs, Excon will explain to you, that it's ok because he fit a description. Doesn't matter that there are laws governing when handcuffs go on. The police can break those laws when the kid fits the description. It's just common sense.

Now let's all agree to always let the police do whatever they want to us. Because goddammit it's their self given right to throw their weight around. And if you have a problem with it, Excon will set you straight. He'll assert bull**** until you are so tired of him, you would rather hit yourself in the head with a hammer than read another line. And once you have sufficient brain damage, you'll understand exactly what he is saying

It's so great that we've completely rid the police of racism only a few decades after segregation. Just amazing.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
God, why do I bother Excon. It's always the same with you. Every single time. No matter what video evidence you have. No matter what the laws are. Whenever there is a black person mistreated, the police are completely without fault. Every single time. A statistical miracle. Racism is dead. Excon has proven to all of us, that we are don't really know what are rights are. And it doesn't matter what they are anyway, because the police would never ever abuse them. That's not what the police do. They've never done it, according to Excon. So let's all thank Excon for showing us the light.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.


ThoughtEx. said:
Cops shoot a 12 year old unarmed boy for playing in the park. Excon will explain to you, that it wasn't racism, they were right to shoot that boy.
Click to expand...
Your are sorely confused. While it clearly was not racism, and folks needed that pointed out to them, the argument is that they were not wrong given the evidence and law.



I see you forgot what the topic is. Figures.


ThoughtEx. said:
Cops beat an unarmed man to death in front of his family. Excon will explain to you exactly why that man had to die in front of his child.
Click to expand...
Had to die? Besides being wrong as usual, you crack me up. :lamo


ThoughtEx. said:
Cops chase down a 10 yo black kid and put him cuffs, Excon will explain to you, that it's ok because he fit a description. Doesn't matter that there are laws governing when handcuffs go on. The police can break those laws when the kid fits the description. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...
They were not wrong, and as you were already told the cuffs were appropriate. So stop lying by saying the laws were broken. They weren't.


ThoughtEx. said:
Now let's all agree to always let the police do whatever they want to us. Because goddammit it's their self given right to throw their weight around. And if you have a problem with it, Excon will set you straight.
Click to expand...
Apparently, using your terminology, you need to be set straight as you rarely post a valid complaint.
 
Excon said:
Wrong as usual.


Your are sorely confused. While it clearly was not racism, and folks needed that pointed out to them, the argument is that they were not wrong given the evidence and law.



I see you forgot what the topic is. Figures.


Had to die? Besides being wrong as usual, you crack me up. :lamo


They were not wrong, and as you were already told the cuffs were appropriate. So stop lying by saying the laws were broken. They weren't.


Apparently, using your terminology, you need to be set straight as you rarely post a valid complaint.
Click to expand...

Excon has spoken everyone. He has declared me to be wrong. So it must be so. As he is the ultimate judge on what is racist and what is not. We must all bow down to his great knowledge. So far, he has judged on a case by case basis that the police are in no way shape or form racist. Pack it BLM, you're just wrong, Excon said so, must be true. Pack it in ACLU, no longer needed. Excon has spoken. Heck, might as well tear up the Constitution. Excon said it doesn't matter because the police would never violate it. Ever. No possibility. Heck and when you clearly show him it is, he'll tell you why your wrong. Which will be. "You are wrong." Wow, can't argue with logic like that. And remember, when the police say something, they should always be believed. They are completely incapable of lying. It's why they became police, they got tired of being able to lie.

And be afraid if you challenge Excon he might (as in always without fail) use this emoji on you. :lamo
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Excon has spoken everyone. He has declared me to be wrong. So it must be so. As he is the ultimate judge on what is racist and what is not. We must all bow down to his great knowledge. So far, he has judged on a case by case basis that the police are in no way shape or form racist. Pack it BLM, you're just wrong, Excon said so, must be true. Pack it in ACLU, no longer needed. Excon has spoken. Heck, might as well tear up the Constitution. Excon said it doesn't matter because the police would never violate it. Ever. No possibility. Heck and when you clearly show him it is, he'll tell you why your wrong. Which will be. "You are wrong." Wow, can't argue with logic like that. And remember, when the police say something, they should always be believed. They are completely incapable of lying. It's why they became police, they got tired of being able to lie.
Click to expand...
Says the person who is unable to point out anything racist or even wrong in what the Officers did. Doh!
 
Excon said:
Says the person who is unable to point out anything racist or even wrong in what the Officers did. Doh!
Click to expand...

It's racist Excon. Because no one, well at least no one that doesn't excuse everything the police do, believes for a second that they would have cuffed a white kid.

Because again. Putting handcuffs on anyone requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. Which, I am arguing they didn't even have reasonable suspicion on the grounds that there are alot of black kids who like to wear blue shirts. Doesn't narrow it down one bit. And with a weak description like that they are basically picking black kids at random.

Stopping a Juvenile for Questioning
An officer who has a “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot, and that a particular individual is involved, may stop and temporarily detain that person for questioning and a minimal “frisk” if there’s reason to think the detainee has weapons. The same is true when the person is a juvenile.

Arresting a Juvenile
Unlike a temporary stop, and arrest is more serious, and means that the individual is not free to leave. In order to arrest an adult, an officer must have “probable cause.” More stringent than a “reasonable suspicion,” probable cause means that the officer is more certain that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Officers need an arrest warrant unless the situation makes it impracticable or impossible to get one (such as when the criminal activity is ongoing and dangerous). These rules apply equally to juveniles, with the exception noted just below.

When the officer has a quasi-parental relationship with the juvenile, as is true for public school officials, for example) the full-blown probable cause requirement is softened a bit. Such officers need only a reasonable suspicion that the juvenile is involved in criminal activity. However, any subsequent search must be reasonable and related to securing the officer’s safety. For example, the Supreme Court has held that strip searching a teenage girl suspected of selling pills to schoolmates was not warranted, because the school officials faced no immediate threat of harm from her. (Safford Unified School District v. Redding, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2009.)
Click to expand...

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/juvenile-law/arresting-kids.html

Do you think those cops have a qausi parental relationship with that kid? No? Oh, then I guess, they arrested that kid illegally. Hmm. Imagine that. And no I don't think it would have happened to a white kid, because cops are afraid of legal action from white parents even when the kid do something wrong. Black parents are just relieved the kid didn't die.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
It's racist Excon. Because no one, well at least no one that doesn't excuse everything the police do, believes for a second that they would have cuffed a white kid.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual and an absurd belief.

At no point is there anything remotely racist in the Officers actions or intent, and you have repeatedly been unable to show any such thing.
Do you even know what racist means? If you do know, why can you not provide any evidence of it?


ThoughtEx. said:
Because again. Putting handcuffs on anyone requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
And you are wrong. Probable cause is the standard for arrest. Not for use of cuffs.
In an arrest you are most likely going to be handcuffed.
In a detention you may be handcuffed.

And State is going to pass a law that prohibits the use of cuffs in reasonable circumstances. Legislators are not stupid enough to tie an Officer's hands like that.



When Can Police Place You in Handcuffs?
By Daniel Taylor, Esq. on August 13, 2014 6:57 AM

Many people associate being handcuffed by police with being arrested and read Miranda rights.

However, there are several different situations, including but not limited to being arrested, in which police may place you in handcuffs or other restraints without violating your civil rights.

  • When executing a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of police officers to use handcuffs to detain occupants of premises being searched pursuant to a search warrant in Muehler v. Mena in 2005. The Court had previously found in Michigan v. Summers (in 1981) that handcuffing an occupant during search of the premises was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizure of a person.
  • For officer safety purposes. The same rationale that allows officers to handcuff occupants of a premises being searched also applies to other situations in which an officer feels he or she may be at risk. As a training bulletin used by the Los Angeles Police Department states, “The handcuffing of an arrestee is not based on rigid criteria. It is determined by the nature of each situation as perceived by the officer.” If an officer feels that placing a person in handcuffs is the best way to ensure his or her own safety, then a court would not likely find that the officer had violated the rights of the person being detained.
[...]​

Find Law | Blotter
​

As perceived by the officer, not by some ignorant Monday morning quarterback.


ThoughtEx. said:
Which, I am arguing they didn't even have reasonable suspicion on the grounds that there are alot of black kids who like to wear blue shirts.
Click to expand...
Truly nonsensical thoughts in that post.

Again, the totality of the information available is considered.
  1. The person they approached was a juvenile (as reported),
  2. is black (as reported),
  3. in the same area (as reported),
  4. wearing the same colored clothing (as reported),
  5. and unlike the other kids there, takes off running as they approach him.

You, pointing to only one part of the information available.

  1. [* ]That's not grounds.

Do you not understand just how unreasonable you sound?

It wouldn't matter if everyone there was wearing blue, he is the one who took off running.
The totality of the information justifies reasonable suspicion for detention purposes. Handcuffs can be justified for at least a couple of reasons here. He ran (tried to escape and his safety). The person he matched the description of was armed with a gun. (safety)
You have no valid argument against what the Officers did.

And none of that involves your unsupportable claims of racism.


Continued below.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Doesn't narrow it down one bit. And with a weak description like that they are basically picking black kids at random.
Click to expand...
Weak? Not.
The juvenile ran from them. When matching a description, that is sufficient reason to pursue, detain and ascertain.


ThoughtEx. said:
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/juvenile-law/arresting-kids.html
Click to expand...
And? It doesn't refute anything I said.



ThoughtEx. said:
Do you think those cops have a qausi parental relationship with that kid? No? Oh, then I guess, they arrested that kid illegally.
Click to expand...
Your augmentation is just so wrong.
They do not have to have such a relationship to detain or arrest. Only reasonable suspicion for detainment and probable cause for arrest.


And again, the premise was if the juvenile had not been identified, they most certainly could have taken him down to the station (juvenile detention ) to id him, just as they would do to an adult who matched the description of a wanted person, was in the same area of that person, and ran and then refused to identify.


ThoughtEx. said:
Hmm. Imagine that. And no I don't think it would have happened to a white kid, because cops are afraid of legal action from white parents even when the kid do something wrong.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt you could support that assertion, which would be no different than your failure to support your other assertions.

In reality though, police shoot blacks less than they shoot whites because they do not want the racial haranguing (racial bs) that follows.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds​
 
Did the suspect they look for just commit the crime? It happened the day before. If it was 45 minutes after the crime I could see them stoppin someone JUST TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS. But it was the next day, a whole day later and they are still pretending to use the same Suspect ID the next day still.

We all know what happened... The cops got mad that some little black boy was scared of them and ran when the patrol car came around the corner (even tho he was innocent). Which is understandable because cops actually shot and killed his dad.

That must suck to have your dad shot when hes unarmed and then cops come around claiming ur a gangster thug murderer that escaped from jail 10 year old.
 
Excon said:
Weak? Not.
The juvenile ran from them. When matching a description, that is sufficient reason to pursue, detain and ascertain.



And? It doesn't refute anything I said.



Your augmentation is just so wrong.
They do not have to have such a relationship to detain or arrest. Only reasonable suspicion for detainment and probable cause for arrest.


And again, the premise was if the juvenile had not been identified, they most certainly could have taken him down to the station (juvenile detention ) to id him, just as they would do to an adult who matched the description of a wanted person, was in the same area of that person, and ran and then refused to identify.


I seriously doubt you could support that assertion, which would be no different than your failure to support your other assertions.

In reality though, police shoot blacks less than they shoot whites because they do not want the racial haranguing (racial bs) that follows.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds​
Click to expand...

Leave it to a statist to explain his "non-racism" as a known innocent little black boy pees his pants in handcuffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom