Good thing they did not have this nonsense BS when I was a kid. From the age of 5, we were put out in the morning and told to scram until lunch or packed a lunch and vanished until dinner. We ran wild in packs thru peoples backyards hopping fences, pedaled thru alleyways at breakneck speed, stole fruit out of neighbors yards, pranked entire streets at one time or another, stomped thru marshes on Edisto and swam in riptide waters on Sullivans alone and somehow managed to survive. We even jumped off the the Ben Sawyer bridge and swam like hell at age 9. Today my grandparents and parents would be locked up and I would be a total and complete indecisive wuss.
I think that is the way he feels. He is somehow deluded into thinking that HE builds airplanes. And I bet he feels that he is in his position because he works hard, compared to all those Lazy B employees.
Funny - this story was posted to the Seattle Times website for about an hour then it mysteriously disappeared. It never made the print version.
You ask why WJH? The answer is simple, Jim McNerney must be a tactless asshole.
To Jacob Bridges, the black community was shocked by the Marley Lion incident just as you were, those thugs needed to be caught!!!!...but the Chas city police dept & the sheriffs office wasted no time in publicly investigating... They shook down a whole neighborhood, Ardmore. They paid informants & then let their names & involvement be print on the front page of the p&c.
No disrespect to Marley Lion & his family & friends, but if I , as a black man were sleeping in a parking lot in my car...I'm sure the police would have been there to find me a different place to sleep....Jail. Maybe they should question what white people are doing for a change.
I mean...think about it...the biggest story I've heard dealing with white folks & the police is the increase in arrests for public intoxication downtown. & these people are trying to walk home instead of driving.
White people commit crimes to is all I'm saying.
It's a single not and album aren't you supposed to be a journalist? Get Your Info righy
The individual was carrying a fully loaded revolver *with extra rounds*. THE OFFICER'S SUSPICION WAS COMPLETELY WARRANTED! He reacted to the behavior of the individual, and very well may have prevented a serious violent crime.
What would it have cost this man to say that he was proud to lead thousands of hard working poeple who build great airplanes? Why degrade his work force? Why make the rest of us feel cheap and dirty when we use their products?
People also wear baseball caps to conceal their identity. People wear big sunglasses to conceal their identity. People wear scarves to conceal their identity. People hide all kinds of stuff in ridiculously over-sized purses. People wear backpacks for no apparent reason. People wear these things in inappropriate weather and lighting all. the. time.
You may be right that the one piece of clothing singled out as suspicious enough to warrant otherwise random stop and frisks by the police is just by coincidence also the only one that is much more likely to be worn by black people, in terms of cultural fashion. It's a shitty coincidence if that's the case, but it's not race baiting to point that out.
Mars, I understand entirely what you are saying. I am saying that I disagree that the totality of the situation was reasonable enough.
According to his own report, the totality of the circumstances to initiate the stop were a hoodie on a warm night and a peculiar "look" in the kid's eyes. His description may have seemed to fit a SINGLE preliminary commonality with criminal behavior, but otherwise the kid was acting entirely normal. "Looks" in people's eyes are so ridiculously subjective that to say that it can be the other HALF of reasonable suspicion in a Terry stop means that our definition of reasonableness has gotten way too loose.
And that's my point, and where we disagree. A single article of clothing should not be enough to constitute reasonable and articulable cause in totality for police detainment. In his report he does not say that Curnell was nervous or shifty, just that he was not responsive - which I believe ought to be his right, since I do not believe that a reasonable level of suspicion had been attained.
I don't think it is missing the point and it does become incumbent on the authorities to inform the public that they can't wear hoodies after a certain time or in a certain temperature. That way the citizenry can make a reasonable decision about what they are planning to wear - much like how women are not going to walk around topless, even on a really hot day, without incurring a police action. I'd like to know what other clothing will do the same.
Because otherwise what you risk creating, and what we seem to have now, is a subjective system in which only the police know the rules - rules that they are free to invent as they go along. When that happens you introduce the possibility of bias and stereotype. It may not be intentional, but it doesn't surprise me that the system trains cops that the clothes that black people wear (frequently) can be used to hide weapons. These training policies were created in an era with deep prejudice and suspicion of minorities (as if we're out of that era today).
If you were to train them instead that white people's clothes can be used to hide weapons and started Terry stopping them on that basis alone I can also guarantee that you'd find enough criminals to start creating a stereotype there. We have mountains of data that suggest that criminal behavior is consistent across racial lines, controlling for economics. But we don't do that and white people don't get stopped so the only people caught and labeled criminals are black people, meaning police stay EXTRA suspicious about black people, who in turn trust the police less, and the wheel keeps turning. Yes, race has something to do with it. No, it doesn't make Medlin "racist."
Confirmation bias all but guarantees that you only remember the Curnells with the gun or the drugs or the whatever. The statistics say that the vast number of Terry stops result in nothing, which would suggest to me that our standard for "reasonableness" is set too low.
Thank you for writing about this. People can donate to Debra Harrell, arrested for letting her daughter play outside while she worked a shift at McDonald's. Link here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-lo…
I wish someone in South Carolina could find out why Harrell's child was kept for an excruciating 17 days in foster care. That seems obscene in this case, but maybe par for the course here. What could take 17 days for them to determine? It's hard to imagine who would think that wouldn't cause life-long trauma to the very child being said to be the object of concern.
You'll find this interesting: But I know of a situation where a doctor who was being interviewed for a medical practice brought in her mother to her job interview. A frikkin doctor.
The link I posted above was to an image of the unabomber composite drawing from the only witness, who happened to look trough a window at work and saw him at the time he was planting a bomb in the parking lot. The bomb was a small piece of 2x4 with nails sticking up, placed in a parking spot, and when someone picked it up it detonated. And this composite sketch is regarded as the most notorious criminal composites ever, and the reason he was wearing a hoodie was to help conceal his identity. That's why in some situations, such as it being 85 degrees, police can consider it suspicious. The cities' own policy is very specific on this very issue and gives concise regulations on exactly how to approach someone that does not profile them or violate their rights.
Appreciate the conversation but this is getting way too non constructive responding to a bunch of race baiters.
The sadder thing is what this leads to: kids who can't think for themselves or do just about anything independently. They don't know how to make decisions or assess risk. They either can't form their own opinions or, if they can, they don't trust them. This is the real tragedy of helicopter parenting.I have been a teacher for over 30 years and now believe that teaching critical thinking is more important than just about any content.
I think name calling and race baiting would be the tactic of an abusive person.
The only people offended by the SLED investigation were the ones who launched abusive accusations accusing the officer of shooting the teen, before the investigation was even complete. I waited for the investigation to be complete, and simply recognize that the officer in this situation, who was also African American, was at risk, and, did use the proper protocol.
If there was any illegal profiling, abuse, or misconduct there would be a federal investigation.
But that to happen there will need to be more than race baiting journalism and abusive name calling.
Shannon...I believe u just racially profiled all black people. We all don't ghetto our cars out & we all don't wear I'll fitting clothes & we all don't carry drugs & guns in our poor ghetto neighborhood. We all don't choose to not work a 9 - 5.
Your attitude is a racially based misconception of all black people. The same racially based attitude of many police officers. Once again , try walking in our shoes for a day. BTW all the things that you have inaccurately put on all black people are done by white people as well but they don't get harassed for it.
"Curnell is supposed to have the right to ignore police unless there is cause to detain."
There was cause to detain.
Constitutional policing does not require that officers be clairvoyant. Nor does it even require that they be right all the time, or that they never stop and question people who aren't doing anything wrong. It merely requires that they be reasonable. And it is completely reasonable for officers to be attuned to behaviors that research and police experience have shown to be very common among armed criminals, and to use those behaviors, in concert with other situational factors, to stop, question, and even pat down people on the street.
This is true even if those behaviors are not EXCLUSIVE to criminals. Again, the relevant phrase is "totality of the circumstances". This has been bog-standard jurisprudence for close to half a century since the Terry decision. You have rights during police encounters. What you do not have is a right to expect that you will never have any such encounters unless you are obviously committing a crime. To insist on such a standard would be to make police work impossible, and it's the Bridgeview Villages of this world that would suffer the most.
This is why the courts use the doctrine of the "reasonable officer". To demand bright-line rules about what you can and can't wear is to miss the point. Nobody is going to codify in statute or policy when is too hot for a hoodie. It would be impossible anyway.
Officer Medlin had plenty of reasonable basis to be suspicious that Denzel Curnell was committing a crime, and he was right. Officer Medlin had reason to believe Curnell was armed, and again, he was right. Officer Medlin made reasonable observations, he took reasonable precautionary actions, and he was in fact correct in his suspicions. That it ended in tragedy is the responsibility of one person: Denzel Curnell.
The three R's more suitable for the comments above and for people who are offended by an investigation of a suspicious death would be racist, redneck republicans. I'm wearing a hoodie right now.
Gut feelings sparked by potential indicators are fine. Trying to speak to someone is fine. Following that person and continuing to observe behavior would have been fine, as would any number of tactics. But until Curnell DID something suspicious (aside from asserting a right to walk down the street unmolested by the police) I don't think it's appropriate to start drawing weapons and tackling people.
Curnell is supposed to have the right to ignore police unless there is cause to detain. You can hide contraband in ANY baggy clothing, any bag, any purse. The disagreement here is on what constitutes "reasonable." Considering the mountains of statistics that we have that these stops very rarely bear the kind of fruit they did this time, it stands to reason that maybe hoodies in warm weather aren't as suspicious as all those police academies make them out to be. And that's my main point - I'm not out to get Medlin, who I am sure is just going by how he was trained - I am bothered by standard operation procedure for the police.
If, as you say, being nonresponsive to an officer when you are not breaking any laws causes "reasonable suspicion" to warrant a physical and violent confrontation then what rights do we have? I'm fine with respect for authority but where does this line get drawn?
Which clothes am I allowed to wear? When is it too hot for a hoodie? Can I wear baggy pants? Where do backpacks fall in the "reasonable suspicion" spectrum? If I am wrong on any of these questions (which have no standard or codified answer, by the way), that means I am subject to random search at the whim of an officer's gut feelings or an interpretation of my facial expression? I can get tackled by a cop for looking at them sideways (or "vacantly")? That's not the way things are supposed to work.
As for his fear for his safety, I've never felt particularly threatened by someone who has his back turned and is several yards away calmly walking in the other direction.
I'm not saying Medlin was a racist. I am saying that this shit just does not happen to white people. Saying race had nothing to do with a shakily justified stop and frisk in this country is just plugging your ears.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper