Skip to main content

A few years back I was involved in a family dispute and the police was called.  Initially the police determined that there was no need to escalate the incident and they left the scene.  About one week later two detectives show up at my door stating they wanted to talk to me.  It was a Thursday and I happen to be home from work.  I answered the door and let the detectives in.  We stood in my kitchen and I spoke with them openly about the incident that took place a week earlier.  They informed me that I had to go to the station with them to be fingerprinted because I had a warrant.  I obliged, I had nothing to hide and wanted to cooperate. Coincidentally my daughter forgot her keys when she left for school that day.  I informed the officers that my daughter was at school, she did not have a key and I would be the only person available to let her in the house when she returned from school at around 3:30 pm.  She was twelve, it was around 11am and the police station was a five minute drive from my house, since I was only going to get fingerprinted I felt confident I would be home in time.  

I got dressed and followed the officers as they led the way to the elevator and down the seven floors to the lobby. I was not in handcuffs and followed the officers willingly.  Once we exited the elevator, and there were some neighbors standing in the lobby, one of the police officers said in a loud whisper right in my ear but loud enough for the neighbors to hear "you better not act up because you’re under arrest".  I was startled by the comments as I looked him in the eye, I could see how his actions could arouse a quick tempered person; he was clearly trying to spark a reaction from me.  My mood began to change and I made a conscious decision to remain calm, I did not want to get shot I didn’t know if I had a trigger happy cop.  I followed the officers to their car and was driven to the precinct station.  

I was then placed in an interrogation room where I recounted the events as I saw them and answered countless questions for approximately one hour.   I asked if I was going to be put into jail they said no they just wanted to check my fingerprints, get my version of events and give me a court date.  They asked me to sign a statement and I told them I would not sign anything they had my verbal statement.  I requested to have the fingerprints taken because the officers explain they would have to check to see if I had any outstanding crimes against my prints and that would take time, I told the officers again that I needed to be home by 3:30 pm to let my daughter in the house.  The officers mouthed the words expressing they would be done in time for me to get home to my child but I could tell by their attitude they did not mean it.  

I was asked question after question for what seemed to be another hour; I was yelled at, called names, and even poked. They seemed to be looking for a certain answer. When I dared to raise my voice I was told to be quiet and I did not have the right to raise my voice even though I was being verbally assaulted by the officers.  They questioned me about everything even other activities in the neighborhood none of which had anything to do with my case and it was obvious I had no knowledge of them.  They just seemed to be fishing, operating in their own little realm of reality.   When I realized that they had no intentions of taking into consideration anything that I told them about being a single mother, about wanting to be there when my child got home from school, when I realized they were not taking into consideration that I had cooperated fully with them I became annoyed and stopped talking, I began to insist my fingerprints be taken so that I could go home and that was willing to talk about.  I threatened to file a complaint; I asked for a pen and paper and began taking notes, documenting my treatment while in police custody.  When I asked to go to the rest room one of the officers even had the audacity to tell me that I could leave my notes in the room, the nerve.  

At approximately three pm my fingerprints were finally taken, around six pm an officer came and told me that I was free to go. I was in police custody for seven hours for a bench warrant in a domestic dispute.  A dispute the police admitted to pursuing only because the other party insisted.  I was let go without going before a judge and having a bail hearing.  In other words this was no serious offense, but they held me unnecessarily for seven hours for something that should have taken one or two hours at most. I was pissed and I wanted to file a complaint but all I could think about was the fact that my child was outside for about three hours and I hurried home.  Being a single mother and not wanting to get caught up in anything that would take me away from work or my child I did not follow up with a complaint about the harassment I received while in custody because I thought it would be a long losing battle.  

I tend to believe that the way the police treat people like me is an institutional problem.  I remember once my car was stalled and I needed a jump to get started.  I flagged a police unit and explained to the officers my situation; they told me that they could not give me a jump because their vehicle was restricted from doing so.  I remember wondering if I were in a white community would things have been different.  

Last year in New Orleans I was at a Marti Gras parade when a mob started jumping over the barricade and stepping on people who were standing orderly behind the barrier, I was among them.  Parade goers started shouting for the officer standing near by to stop the offenders from jumping over because we were being trampled. I commented that the officer was standing there and not doing anything about it.  Well the officer came over to me and started screaming in my face threatened and insulted me and telling me to shut my f-ing mouth.  Others in the crowd tried to come to my defense but nothing would stop this officer from using me as an example.  Did the fact that I was a black woman and the officers white play a role in how I was treated, maybe. Did I feel like those officers had something against me personally, no I didn’t ---- but  I couldn’t help feeling because I was black they cared less about me or my situation. There are many occasions where I was able to observe officers in action and in many cases they were behaving badly ---asserting their position and power---being a jerk.  

There are other times when I had to deal with the police where I felt I was treated fairly, would there be a different outcome if I were a different color I don’t know but what mattered is I felt I was treated fairly and respectfully.  What I did learn is that it matters who is on duty.  It matters who responds to the call or who is writing the ticket because a jerk could show up.  I don’t think there is personal bias on the part of all police officers, on the part of some, yes----and I do think there are certain prejudices built into the system, left overs from our turbulent history.  I get the feeling that there is a culture of acceptance when it comes to discrimination against minorities.  

Are you more likely to get arrested or ticketed if you are black or Latino, yes. This tendency for discrimination is adopted by officers no matter the color. These prejudices are played out across the country in random acts of discrimination and brutality against minorities and the poor.  We see it when a man reaches for his wallet and gets shot 41 times, when a black man is raped with a broom stick by white officers.  The discrimination was evident in the Central Park Jogger case and recently in Jena. We see it when minority defendants are given twice the prison time at sentencing as their white counterparts. These cases gave me the impression there was a predisposition towards minorities as inherently bad people, so if you use excessive force or antagonizing tone it’s ok.  

But most officers are just doing their job while some officers are just jerks---an attitude with a gun, a license to shoot and searching for a reason.  In the incident between Professor Gates and Officer Crowley it is clear that Crowley did not follow his training, but sought to impose his authority. In his report and by his own admission Officer Crowley did not immediately identify himself or why he was at the professor’s residence.  According to Crowley he was "standing in plain sight of this man", but he only asked the professor to come outside to talk to him and the professor said he would not---It was only after the professor demanded to know who he was that officer Crowley gave his name and informed the professor that he was investigating a call reporting a burglary.  What was Officer Crowley’s tone and manner when he approached the professor?  We know Officer Crowley did not like the way the professor was talking to him, the professor was demanding identification from him, talking about his mother and complaining about being a black in America.

I am shocked that officer Crowley led sensitivity training---where was his sensitivity in this incident.  He had "determined that Gates was lawfully in the house" but was "confused by the behavior he exhibited towards me"---Crowley’s words.  And while Crowley has a right to feel the way he does, why did the professors have to pay for his confusion.  Maybe Crowley should have taken it up with the therapist that we pay for.  Why should the professor be arrested because the officer was emotional?  The professor was obviously not a burglar or a hostage because he produced identification and was moving about his home quite freely; at that point there was no evidence to support a burglary.  Why did Officer Crowley enter Professor Gates home without permission?  All he had on hand was an angry "older male" in his own home yelling about being a "black man in America" this is where officer Crowley’s sensitivity training should have come to fruition, instead he lost his cool and essentially wasted taxpayer money by arresting the professor.  Maybe officer Crowley should have waited for fellow officers to arrive on the scene.  Maybe a citation would have been more appropriate instead of an arrest, after all the professor was standing on his front porch exercising his freedom of speech.

It is hard to distinguish good cops because when there is a bad one, the force forms a shield, protecting them with the blue wall.  It is the wall of blue that is more dangerous than a bigoted cop. The thing that bothers me the most when I see these acts of intimidation by the police is how hard it is to root out the corrupted and the bigoted.  I think about the fact that we pay their salaries; I am upset when I see an obnoxious officer.  That’s why it matters who is on duty not only because we pay their salary but an officer like Crowley could show up at your door, an officer who leads sensitivity training but is still confused.  You could get a cop like Mark Furman who admitted to having aggression towards minorities especially blacks, is suspected of planting evidence, now he is a television consultant and considered an expert on matters pertaining to law enforcement.  

Could a black officer have the same success as Mark Furman?  I don’t know, but I do know that a black officer is just as likely to act out one of these random acts of discrimination as their white counter part, because when it comes to the police the color that binds is blue.  Even though some black officers experience discrimination by their co-workers, they tow the line when one of their fellow officers is accused of misconduct.  I’m not sure if Crowley had a chip on his shoulder and because of the blue wall we won’t know, but we pay him to stay cool and exercise discretion and I don’t think he did.  

Crowley was being a jerk, because even when other officers arrived on the scene he did not remove himself and hand off to one of them.   He knew his presence was upsetting to the professor.  Maybe an officer with a cooler head, tougher skin and adherence to protocol would have made a difference.   Part of leadership is knowing when your presence is not helping a situation, but based on Mr. Crowley’s action I have the suspicion he already concluded he was going to arrest the professor so continued to agitate him.  I have no doubt that Officer Crowley requires additional training.  I do commend officer Crowley because the professor did not end up like Eleanor Bumpers or Sean Bell, so I guess there is an up side.

I was insulted by the behavior of the police after President Obama made his commentary; I think we got a glimpse of what the professor might have gone through.  The message transmitted by the force seems to be; talk about the police and you are going to have all of law enforcement to contend with.  I thought the press conference held by the union and police officials was a disgrace and I hope it was not paid for with taxpayer money. Their loyalty was to the uniform and not the public; I felt I was watching celebrity wannabees.  Why cant we critique the police are they above the law?  Why is there absolution when it comes to the police force, aren’t they mere humans?  In this case they behaved "stupidly" and because Obama said so they launched an attack against him. This is just an example of the intimidation felt by citizens daily from the police.  The actions by Crowley and the police force after Obama's statement led me to question Crowley’s version of events.  When Obama reached out to him by phone Crowley and the force wanted more, they weren’t satisfied with just a phone call and in a way bullied Obama into having beers right in front of our eyes.  Now Obama has to take valuable time out of his day to stroke the ego of the police.  

Yes this is our tax dollars at work, that’s why it matters who is on duty, and it matters who we give a badge and gun.  There are too many incidents of brutality towards the general public from the police.  Serving and protecting the public is a privilege and should only be awarded to the finest among us.  The police force is no place for an egomaniac with sensitive skin.  An out of control police officer is no different than the criminals they pursue; they are both a menace to the society.  

Originally posted to The Pollitikat on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 05:36 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  The "toughest" gang in town.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It is supremely to be desired that they don't even know you exist.  Cops can be wrong, but for goodness sake don't suggest it to their faces.  Even the president has to apologize to them.

      If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?

      by gdwtch52 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is generally not in your interest to criticize (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a cop, but it is emphatically your right. (Not disagreeing with you here -- just generally hate the idea held by surprisingly many that challenging a cop means you "deserve" whatever petty and illegal revenge he exacts in response.)

  •  The Gates case is not a very good example (0+ / 0-)

    While the cop shouldn't have pushed the envelope and arested him for Disorderly Conduct, Gates had to have been way out of line and defensive.

    This case had two very head strong people - I think Obama is right they all need to sit down and have a beer.....

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 05:47:02 AM PDT

    •  "Had to have" (8+ / 0-)

      Why "had to have"?

      Seriously. This is always something that makes me wonder about people when there is an incident.
      Why do some always give the cop the benefit of the doubt and say the person whose rights were so infringed on was at fault or even patially at fault?

      I do not understand. Because sometimes you know the cops are ALL in the wrong. It happens.

      A Creative Revolution- - To revolt within society in order to make it a little better- Krishnamurti

      by pale cold on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:12:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because (0+ / 0-)

        this case isn't about a Cop walking the beat or on patrol and seeing something.  It's a case where the cop was called to the residence for a burglary - breaking / entering.  The cop is on guard - needs to confirm identity (what a story if the cop walked up, the guy says it's his house and the cop say's - O.K. - bye).  This is where there was no respect - and it was most likely mutual.  It take two to tango.  

        The cops can't be all in the wrong in this case - they were doing their job.  

        I think it all goes back to respect - and most likely, neither had a great deal of respect for the other.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:20:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What was that disrespect based on in ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, Dirtandiron, smallgal

          ...each case? That, I think, would get to the real issue rather fast.

          Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:46:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  the cop did not identify himself when he (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dirtandiron, mallyroyal, smallgal

          walked up on the scene he asked to professor to come outside and talk, shouldnt the officer have first said I am officer so and so and there was a call reporting a possible burglary?  the officer sets the tone and I dont believe Crowley set a tone that would have led to a possitive outcome.

          "The United States does not torture" - President Barack Obama

          by the Pollitikat on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:51:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, why didn't the officer (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LostInTexas, Dirtandiron, Pender

            ID himself when requested 3 times by Gates??

            There have been a number of diaries with all kinds of people expressing various types of bullying and outright entrapment by police officers. It's been eye-opening and very disturbing.

            A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot.

            by smallgal on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:59:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  officers tend to regard asking for their (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dirtandiron, smallgal

              names, badge numbers, or their supervisor's name as a de facto threat of either a complaint, a lawsuit or some heavy duty influence brought to bear.
              That said, it does not mean that what such a request means all the time and it is just part of the job.

              •  remember reading (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that women should not even open their door until they've got the officer's badge # and called the precinct to ensure he's legit - when possible of course.

                A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot.

                by smallgal on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:07:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Gates provided 2 IDs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and the cop could have contacted the university which is Gates' landlord.

        •  Falsely arresting someone isn't "doing their job" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LostInTexas, Dirtandiron

          at all. It's remarkable how unconcerned people like you are at the prospect of a police officer subjecting someone to the enormous terror and humiliation of arrest when there is no legal basis at all for arrest, and when it is done only to satisfy the officer's thirst for petty revenge for some perceived slight. Disrespect is not a crime, and it's appalling that some people don't understand how important that fact is.

        •  The cops were NOT doing their jobs, BULLSHIT (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The fact that Prof. Gates was released with no charges being filed put the LIE to that one. If the cops had been doing their jobs, then he would have been charged with something, which he was not.

      •  It would be interesting to know (0+ / 0-)

        if Crowley had any other complaints or disciplinary actions against him, recognizing, of course, that some complaints are groundless  

      •  I think those words (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LostInTexas, Dirtandiron

        "had to have" illuminate the chasm btw people on this site

        like I know, FOR A FACT, that one doesn't have to do ANYTHING untoward in order to get locked up for disorderly conduct beyond personally offending a police officer's sensibilities.

        obviously some here don't have that experience.

        "But Black Dynamite! I sell drugs in the community!"

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 07:30:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've no doubt Gates was in a bad mood. (7+ / 0-)

      He'd just come home from what must have been an exhaustive travel schedule and found his front door jammed. I've no doubt that he over-reacted.  However, Crowley should have been professional enough to defuse a tense situation and left after determining no crime had been committed.  Instead, he continued to bait Gates to get the arrest.  BTW, It's not illegal to be belligerent in your own home.  

      •  I agree with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, the Pollitikat

        Crowley should have difused the situation by walking away once he found out that Gates was the owner and had confirmed I.D. - a simple "have a good day, sir" even if he meant to say fuck off asshole - it would have ended.  Arresting the guy, while it may have been within the cops right, was bad.

        But, maybe it was a learning situation for Gates as well, sometimes you need to keep your mouth shut as well.

        I think both men are looking back at this with a bit of embarassment

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:25:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gates also alleges he was suffering (0+ / 0-)

        from bronchitis and pharyngitis which could not have improved his mood

    •  Why do you assume that Gates must have been (7+ / 0-)

      way out of line?  My interactions with pokice officers have led me to conclude the opposite.  I don't know about the training of county/small city officers in other parts of the country, but in rural Georgia it is minimal.  These guys are usually high school graduates with little or no people skills, no marketable skill, and usually with a mom or dad with connections in local politics to get them this job.  

      Some are bullies and one in my rural area was just arrested for harrassing women he pulled over.  The power trip that some of these guys get on is unbelieveable.  I won't even travel to the nearest local town because the police in that town are notorious for pulling drivers over for
      "infractions" such as driving too close to the yellow line--

      In the South it is routine for black males to be stopped for DWB (driving while black).  I make no assumptions on the Gates drama, but I definitely do not assume that the police officer is always right.

      "The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled." -Plutarch

      by DEQ54 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:15:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Gates had to have been way out of line"? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LostInTexas, Dirtandiron, mallyroyal

      That's a pretty remarkable statement. Gates claimed he was respectful and asked only for the officer's name and badge number as was his right. The officer claimed Gates was abusive and insulted his mother. You automatically believe the officer because... why, again? It is just inconceivable that an officer would exact petty revenge for having his judgment respectfully questioned by a black man?

      I'm not saying the officer's story is necessary wrong, but I think you're out of line to assume that it is necessarily correct.

      I also hate the false equivalence you've constructed here -- that although it was wrong of the cop to abuse his authority and falsely arrest someone to further his petty vendetta, it was also wrong (implicitly, just as wrong) to be mean to the cop in the first place. The two wrongs here are not even approximately equivalent, and it's breathtaking to imply that they are. You remind me of the apologists for the police officers in the Rodney King affair: "sure, they went too far, but on the other hand, Rodney King wasn't a great guy either." Talk about blaming the victim; shame on you.

      •  ? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not saying the officer's story is necessary wrong, but I think you're out of line to assume that it is necessarily correct.

        So what am I doing differently than you?

        If you take you own advice...

        I'm not saying Gate's story is necessary wrong, but I think you're out of line to assume that it is necessarily correct.

        I think you would arrive at my conclusion that it was two men who didn't have respect for one another.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 08:12:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, actually you did say Gates's story was wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Gates had to have been way out of line and defensive.

          This is a conclusion that Gates's story was wrong and the cop's story was right. I don't know how you reached this conclusion.

          •  Maybe I haven't been clear enough (0+ / 0-)

            but they were both wrong.

            I thought I got that point across but maybe not.

            I also said Gates should have never been arrested.


            I said that both men are looking back at this with a bit of embarassment.

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 08:57:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do you know that Gates was "way out of line (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and defensive"? You don't. The parties dispute that. Gates says he calmly asked for the officer's name and badge number. The officer says Gates was angry and insulting. You think the officer's view "had to have been" correct, and therefore Gates's view "had to have been" wrong.

              This isn't a matter of you not being clear enough, it's a matter of you posting one thing and then later changing your mind. Which is fine, and in this case warranted, but it's not a clarification, it's a reversal.

  •  this is why our primetime news shows should be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    more diverse with host not just guest, because the host controls the tone and direction of the questions and content. minorities not having any representation in the primetime hour is the most disturbing aspect of our media when it comes to reporting black and white run ins.  just think, we are in the 21st century, with a black president, and multiple minorities in high places but television is still segregated in the primetime hours. liberal media my ass

  •  On the jump starting... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, the Pollitikat

    I do know that a number of governments have forbidden their employees from jump-starting vehicles while on duty or using a government vehicle.  Apparently there's a liability concern.  The same thing now in NY with police opening a locked vehicle.  They used to be able to do it using a "slim jim", but there were apparently some lawsuits over damage, so now the police are not allowed to do it.  

    I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

    by Norbrook on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 06:25:29 AM PDT

  •  Never assent to questioning without an attorney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, Pender

    It's that simple.

    The Bill of Rights is universal.

    by Paul Goodman on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 07:05:24 AM PDT

    •  Yup, that was my immediate thought as well. (0+ / 0-)

      You're asking for trouble if you say anything to an officer about a serious incident in which there is even the slightest chance you are a suspect.

      I also find it incredibly unconvincing when a diary sets out to prove how disproportionately someone acted in relation to something the diarist may have done but strenuously avoids telling us what the diarist is accused of. Her tone makes it sound like she was accused of something as minor as playing music too loudly, but the fact that she avoids the issue so assiduously makes me think it was something much worse. And if she was accused of something like beating her kids or threatening a mother-in-law with a knife... well, I'm less sympathetic to the frustration with not making it home by 3:30 p.m.

      •  i already said police came responded (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to the initial altercation and determined there was no crime being committed. Ever heard of using the police to harrass someone, well that was basically what was happening to me.  a family member insisted that i be charged for an altercation that took place a week earlier.  no weapons were involved but there was a fight i happen to break a nail and someone was scratched in the process that is considered wounding someone and apparently grounds for that person to pursue an assault charge.  and yes i ended up being dragged through the legal system on phony accusations for eight months.  Because someone has interaction with the police does not automatically make them guilty of something.  sometimes one party is using the police to harrass another party, its up to the police to decipher when they are being used in this manner.  

        "The United States does not torture" - President Barack Obama

        by the Pollitikat on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 08:02:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "someone was scratched"... heh (0+ / 0-)

          Was that person scratched by you, perhaps? This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't find anything unusual or unnecessary about the police following up on a physical altercation even if one of the participants feels it is unnecessary. Yes, if someone physically scratched me, I would consider pressing charges. It's not "harassing" the person who scratched me, it's seeking justice for a physical assault, even if the assault could have been worse.

          I agree that police can often go way overboard and in fact did so in the Gates case. I am generally not sympathetic at all to the police when they let their personal vendettas interfere with their work. But in this case, I don't see anything wrong with the behavior of the police based on your telling.

          •  you may not but as stated (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            this was an incident that happened a week earlier, and I cooperated fully with the police, i was not acting guilty of anything.  I freely went to the station to be interrogated, fingerprinted and get my court date.  This is not about the fact that I had to fight this frivilous case.  the issue is the way the police treated me.  they did not stumble on an irate person, i was not engaged in any illegal activity when they arrived. i was a single mother at home on her day off.  i let them in my house and accompanied them to the station.  why was i held unnecessarily, why wasnt my prints and statement taken and then let go, this was a bench warrant.  This is not about the case and you interest in the details reflects a sensational appettite considering i was not questioning whether the police had a right to talk to me but the way they treated me during our interaction.

            what i was called in for did not justify the treatment i received while in custody.  This was a minor dispute at best.  a dispute that the police earlier decided was best left alone and the parties go their way, it was a dispute involving siblings.  whatever your opinion, the police were out of order.

            "The United States does not torture" - President Barack Obama

            by the Pollitikat on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 08:57:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

              From your recounting, I don't see how the police were out of order. I don't consider any kind of physical altercation in which "someone was scratched" to be a minor dispute at best. It doesn't matter that it had happened a week prior. I agree that the police should not have poked you during the interrogation, but that is the only concrete detail that suggests to me that the police were out of line here.

              Again, I don't disagree that the cops are often abusive or that there are systemic problems with policing in America. I just disagree that your particular anecdote contributes to this thesis. My "interest in the details" of your case do not reflect a "sensational appetite"; they reflect skepticism (that I think has been proven correct) regarding evidence that you offered to prove a particular point.

              •  what does that have me being held for seven hours (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                for a bench/desk warrant?  you seem stuck on the altercation of which i am only giving a small details of my involvment.

                my blog is about the behaviour of the police when we are forced to interact with them.  what ever you may feel about the case of which you do not have the facts, i have laid out my actions and the actions of the police when dealing with this matter.  You seem to forget the fact that i said i cooperated fully with the police yet i was held for seven hours.

                i dont feel the need to comment further. because the case is irrellevant,it was resolved amicably. obviously it was not serious as i was not held or taken to central booking for arrest.

                it seems your mind is quite simple

                "The United States does not torture" - President Barack Obama

                by the Pollitikat on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:52:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Let this be a lesson to you... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, gdwtch52

    Don't ever speak to the police unless you are instructed to by your attorney.  The police are not there to make sure you get treated fair or nice.  They are there to see if they can throw you in jail.  It is serious stuff.  

    ALWAYS CALL A LAWYER WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO TALK TO THE POLICE. Refuse to talk to them without a lawyer present.

  •  Just to put it to rest for you, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, Pender

    no, a police car cannot give a disabled car assistance other than to call for help for various reasons.  It wasn't just because of the color of your skin.  Maybe if you were a voluptuous female you would have received some offer of help with provisions.:)

    Never take the word of a police officer.  They know when they tell you that you'll be back in plenty of time that if they didn't say that, you'd refuse to go without a warrant.

    As for the seven or eight hours of questioning, they'd simply say that you were free to go, you weren't under arrest.  And you weren't.

    They knew you didn't know what your rights were.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 07:19:44 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site