The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/08/31/alabama-black-pastor-arrested-watering-flowers-orig-dp.cnn

there is not a shred of probable cause, and the sad part is some actually view the officers actions as justifiable

(https://i.imgflip.com/6rtvk3.jpg)

For now, I'll let the system play this out.  There are lots of cops out there.  This is only one bad incident with one person making a bad choice.  We'll see where it goes.

I don't care to argue about this and think it will play itself out but the officer asked him for ID after he informed them who he was and he admittedly refused to show them. The probable cause was the phone call that reported him as not supposing to be there.  It was a misunderstanding up 'til then but then it went sideways when he refused to present ID. I believe that is the reason he was arrested and NOT for watering his neighbor's yard. Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job. If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal.  

Walking toward Jennings, Officer Smith told him that a caller said she saw a strange vehicle and a person who “wasn’t supposed to be here” at the house.

Jennings told him the SUV he was talking about belonged to the neighbor who lives there.

“I’m supposed to be here,” he added. “I’m Pastor Jennings. I live across the street.”

“You’re Pastor Jennings? ”Yes. I’m looking out for their house while they’re gone, watering their flowers,” said Jennings, still spraying water.

“OK, well, that’s cool. Do you have, like, ID?” Smith asked.

“Oh, no. Man, I’m not going to give you ID,” Jennings said, turning away.

“Why not?” Smith asked.

“I ain’t did nothing wrong,” the pastor replied.

I hear what you're saying, CF, but the law doesn't work like that.

Existing isn't being suspicious.  The guy doesn't have to show ID when the cop has seen nothing to suggest the guy is a problem.  The cop can sit there and watch him or what have you.  The cop can run plates, can look at addresses, etc.  But you can't arrest a guy for refusing to show ID.  And there was no probable cause.  "Not supposing to be there" isn't criminal activity, so that's just not enough to go on.

I understand why the person made the phone call, but when the cop arrives and sees a guy watering plants and not, instead, breaking in the windows or scaring someone off, that's the end of it.

The phone call did NOT establish probable cause.  Probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed.  Neighbor saying that someone they don't recognize is watering their neighbor's plants does NOT create a a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed.  Refusing to provide a police officer id does NOT create a reasonable basis for believing a crime may have been committed.  There is no general rule you need to carry or provide id to the police, exceptions exist when operating an automobile, entering government building etc. but there is absolutely no requirement to have or provide id to water plants.  

*IF* he was arrested for failing to provide id then the cop violated the law.  He is prohibited to make arrest on that grounds.  

As for the strange vehicle.  Unlike people, cars don't have constitutional rights. The police officer most certainly could have ran the tags.  Had the tags came back stolen or that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the owner of the vehicle *that* would have given rise to enough reasonable suspicion to demand id.  If the cop ran the plates and they were clean then Jennings rights were violated.  If the cop didn't run the plates not only were Jennings right violated but the cop is completely incompetent.  

It is not about taking everyone's word and never finding a criminal.  If when they arrived he was trying to break open a window then that is probable cause.  

This is just another example of a person bird watching while black, oops I mean barbequing in the park while black, oops I mean driving while black, oops I mean water plants while black, that somehow becomes probable cause of a crime.  

If this was a white person who was openly carrying an AR15, the NRA would be all over this as a violation of the second amendment.  

The law works exactly like that. I took this from a Civil Rights attorney's page in Alabama since that's where this happened.

The officer may ask you questions pursuant to an investigation. You have a constitutional right not to answer them, but if you refuse to identify yourself, the officer may have grounds to make an arrest.

The law requires an officer to have probable cause to believe you committed the crime for which you are arrested. "Probable cause" basically means a reasonable basis for believing you are guilty of the offense. What is a reasonable basis depends on the circumstances. The "probable cause" standard is significantly lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for conviction.Probable cause can be just the fact you are in a neighborhood with a high crime rate. It's a pretty broad spectrum.
https://www.alabamacivilrightslawyer.com/civil-rights-faq

Here is the actual law....

2006 Alabama Code - Section 15-5-30 — Authority of peace officer to stop and question.
A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Two points. 

1.  The officer needs probable cause first.  The cop may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions ONLY AFTER first establishing probable cause that the person is committing or is about to commit a crime.  Refusal to provide id doesn't create the probable cause, the probable cause must first exist to even get to the asking the questions part.

2. The officer may demand he provide his name, address and explanation of his action, not ID. When Jennings told him his name, addresses and gave a reasonable explanation of his actions he complied with the demand in full.  This law does not authorize the demand for id, it only authorizes the police officer to ask the person three questions.   

At the point that the officer arrives on site, no crime is even alleged to have been committed.. Someone called and reported a suspicious person, which is not a crime.

At the point that police arrived and saw him watering plants, the MOST they should have done is say, "If you don't live here, we need you to leave" (and I'm not sure they can say even that much).  If it's not the homeowner calling about their own property, and there is no crime occurring when they arrive, police should move on with their day.  But this guy committed the only crime that really matters - disrespecting the police - so naturally, cops feel compelled to escalate the interaction.

First I'd like to say there are plenty of good cops out there doing their job the right way.

But the internet is full of videos like this one where the cops don't even know the laws, and where cops escalate the situation instead of de-escalating the situation.  Too many cops like these guys get butt hurt because individuals will not give them their ID, when they legally don't have to give them ID.

I'm not a defund the police guy, but there needs to be much better training of officers, and there should be continuing education for ALL officers.  I have continuing education for my jobs to be done every year, and 90% of the stuff is all repetitive to me.

The problem is their boss is defending their actions just like CF police don't treat this as a learning opportunity.

So as an example of good cops holding bad cops accountable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOegqWf4pM4&t=616s

The cop in question had just stomped on the back of a disabled elderly man, who was on his hands and knees after being commanded at gunpoint to get on the ground.  This stomp caused the elderly man's head to hit the pavement.  As the elderly man was being examined by paramedics, a bystander asked the cop for his card, to which the cop responded, "I don't have a card" and "They don't give us cards."  Fortunately, a sergeant nearby immediately corrected this blatant lie and told the bystander that they do, in fact, have cards, while writing down the offending officer's badge number on her own card and handing it to the bystander.  She also accurately recorded the events of the stomping incident in her official report, while the offending cop lied and distorted the events in his own report.

The saddest part of watching this take place is the awareness that this sergeant would be extremely lucky not to face prompt and severe retaliation from the rest of the department for her part in this incident.  Police in this country largely seem to act like a Old World gang, where loyalty to The Family takes precedence over any other code.

CF, what probable cause does he have that's evidence of a possible crime?  What would the crime be?  He's watering plants.  That's not against the law.

These two lines tell us a lot about CF's approach to policing and why he should NOT be a police officer. 

"Had he had a warrant on him and the officer let him go about his business the officer would have been killed on social media for not doing his job."

Couple of problems with this.  First and foremost, the ONLY concern CF expresses is for the reputation of the officer, but absolutely nothing else.  For example he could have justified the basis for violating  Jennings's constitutional rights with "if they didn't ask for id and the house was subsequently broken into they would be at a disadvantage in the investigation."  Or he could have gone with "by asking id of everyone the cops don't recognize it prevents crimes"  He could have used either of these excuses instead.  Neither would actually justify the constitutional violation, but they would have indicated a concern for the homeowners property.  But like most cops, CF doesn't actually care about the people who he is paid to "protect and serve"  He does care about the reputation of this officer.    But as indicated in many earlier posts, CF and most cops don't care about their reputation of all people.  Just the folks who support heavy handed law enforcement against minorities.  As for the police reputation within the AA community there is no concern there. 

"If police took everyone's word for it then they would never find a criminal."

The police did not take Jenning's word.  But they did take the caller's word without question.  Wonder why?     Could it be because Jenning's is AA?  Jenning said absolutely nothing to suggest he was lying.  Police paranoia is a large part of the problem. 

 

Are they under water restrictions?  :D

Well played. 

I would say that a cop taking legally incorrect actions solely because he's scared of being roasted on Twitter is the textbook definition of a snowflake, but if we're being honest, it is not credible to assign that viewpoint to the cop in the first place.

Cops do not care the slightest bit about being criticized on social media.  If they did, they would not continue to behave this way while wearing body cams!

They care about some critism.  But not all critism.  Most cops will defend another cop for tasering an elementary student for talking back to a cop, but draw the line at waiting in the hallway during an active shooter.  Not arresting a uppity AA that talked back to them wouldn't be macho. 

That isn't "worrying about social media response."  That is simply enforcing the Prime Directive: thou shalt not disrespect a police officer.  That officer definitely still would have arrested that pastor 20 years ago, before social media or bodycams existed.

Agreed, there is a lot of generational ingrained bad policing. New cops, that may start off as good cops, are trained to go along to get along.  Leadership needs to come from the top.  Long Island Audit has a lot of videos out there of government agencies along the east coast - some are good, some are terrible.

This channel should be required watching for police officers. 

https://www.youtube.com/c/AuditTheAudit

I think cops watching that channel would be like drug dealers watching The Wire or Breaking Bad.
I doubt they'll get the lesson you want them to.

he breaks it down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2HEpfdXmYY

Well just like some criminals are caught because they are not that bright, the cops you see in these videos are also not that bright which is why they do it while wearing body cams. lol

Although I broadly disagree with libertarians, a broken clock is right twice a day...

Chewing a burger without a burger chewing license? Death penalty. (https://twitter.com/LPofDelaware/status/1577998706737029120)

Absolutely indefensible.  Of course, it goes without saying (https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-antonio-police-officer-fired-after-shooting-unarmed-teen-at-mcdonalds-parking-lot-30019308) that this was not the suspect the officer was looking for, that he lied on his police report about what happened, yada yada yada.

Disrespecting the police is always a capital offense.
Police are judge, jury, and executioner.

The funny thing is that even how rare these things happens it almost never haens when people follow the directions of the officer. It's kind of like riding a motorcyle ... I may be have the right of way but it doesn't matter when it comes to a crash with an automobile so I can't just act like it on the highway. Regardless of how a person may feel about police officers when they follow their directives everyone goes home safe. I don't think it matters much in the situation who thinks tey are right or wrong. That's what attorneys are for and they aren't much use of you're dead.

Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8

While I'm loath to event comment on this topic and I certainly do not consider myself "anti-police" in any way (and every single interaction I've ever had with police have been positive, confusing sometimes when abroad and not understanding anything, but still positive), you cannot ignore basic human psychology: People get scared when you pull a gun on them. Basic flight response of an untrained normal human being. Attempted murder is not a reasonable reaction to that, especially not if you are a trained police officer.

Honestly, I don't know how I would have reacted, had I been that kid. I probably would have had a freakin' heart attack (and then been shot by the idiot because I moved in a way he didn't expect). It's not quite clear what actually happened - I read a report that indicated the kids foot might have slipped from the brake, causing the vehicle to move - again, a slip of a foot when scared shitless is not an unreasonable response, not should it be an unexpected response.

Again, I am actually very positive of law enforcement in general, but this tendency of people like you CF to excuse INSANE behavior is not productive.

I'd settle for any cop that killed an unarmed person would at least lose their job and get entered into a nationwide cop offender database to prevent re-hires in other cities. .. If you don't have the mental fortitude to be a cop, then you shouldn't be one.

CF, your stance is strange.

Cops don't have the authority to just tell you what to do under penalty of death.  I support police, but they don't have a free reign to just take any action they choose.

The cop was fired but he needs to be charged with attempted murder, maybe even two counts since there was a teenage girl in the car as well. You couldn't do what he did without rotting in jail for 20 years, this should be no different.

CF, what is your opinion on the second volley of shots the cop fired into that car?

That's a stretch. It isn't like the officer said you're guilty so I'm going to kill you. Police have the authority to detain you if they have a reason to regardless of if you know or even agree with that reason. If during that detainment they feel threated they have authority to fire in self defense.  History and police training show that when people do not comply with orders in many cases it leads to something bad happening to the officer. this means the officer is on major alert and sometimes they do stupid stuff because of that.  That's why it is best for all of us if I just comply with the cop regardless of if he is an arsehole or not.

The whole thing seems excessive to me but based on other things I've seen I know it's possible I do not know the whole story. My whole argument is people rarely get hurt by following the officers orders but when tensions rise bad things do tend to happen.

Funny thing is how rare these incidents are when the police follow training and department policy.  And almost always occur after a cop gives an improper instruction.

Given how dangerous deviations by the police are to the public maybe the solution is make all deviations by the police from official policy a criminal offense.

I disagree. These occurances are rare to begin with and even less rare that the officer is in the wrong. It happens ...  but rarely.

Cops are very rarely held responsible, that is NOT the same thing as not being in the wrong.  The police who unjustifyly arrested Michael Jennings should be treated as an ordinary felony kidnapping.  They won't be but that doesn't mean the acted properly.

This is a pretty crazy one: https://twitter.com/dvidnzt1/status/1578415097072189441

Cop opens door on teen eating a cheeseburger in the parking lot, tries to pull him out, immediately starts shooting, including while the guy is driving away.  What the fuck is going on?

That's the same video we've been talking about for the last page or so.

Oh...lol.

I never actually saw the video until now, which I randomly ran across on twitter.  All of my statements in this thread have been about policing in general.

A cop can only fire his gun to save his life or the life of someone else in immediate peril.  This isn't that.  Firing a car that's leaving you -- what the hell is that?

I honestly don't know much but he was fired pretty much immediately which makes you think he broke several rules/laws. They have submitted the case to a Grand Jury for their consideration in pressing charge against the officer.

^ Even so, if the cop wanted to say that he mistook a hamburger for a loaded gun and shot at the driver, I just don't see any justification for how the cop can continue firing many, many rounds at a car as it's speeding away in the opposite direction.

I can't see how they won't press charges

I've had folks tell me on many occasions that  fast food will end up killing me...though I usually thought it was limited to Taco Bell...   ???

I believe he was still a first year officer, so he was technically on probation still, that made it easy to fire him.  If he was a veteran officer then they would have had a tough time firing him, or he could fight it and probably get his job back like many others have.

This video is a perfect example of why the fact that very rarely is the police officer found to be wrong means the exact opposite of what you claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6263LFJfuc

The police officers actions were criminal yet he was deemed to be justified.

I will say this about interactions with police officers:

I don't think it's right for people in the public to be dicks to the police for no reason.  It doesn't give the cops the right to beat on you or shoot you, but in general, there are ways to refuse unlawful orders without being an asshole or combative.

An interaction with police from both sides should be professional.

In general I agree it is better to be nice to other people.  But I also believe that you deserve what you give.  The very first unlawful order by a cop is the cop being dickish, any dickish move is by the person being treated unfairly by the cop is fully justified. 

I'm not really talking about when cops are unlawful.  But I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable not to cooperate with police.  You have rights, you don't have to let them come in your house, search your car -- you don't owe them an explanation of where you're going or where you've been.

But the cops are gonna ask.  And in denying them those requests, I think people can be dicks and cause escalation.  Cops can be dicks, too.  It takes both parties.

As a society, we need to get to that middle ground where we can deny cops but still be respectful of the position.  ...just like we'd do with any profession.  I don't go to Publix and act a fool to the cashier.  There is a level of decorum.  We probably need better public education about our rights and what is expected of us through traffic stops and stuff.  Cops are scary...and that's coming from a white male with no record and no reason to be afraid of cops.  There's such a power discrepancy with any interaction.  I remember incidences from when I was a kid where I would be afraid to tell cops I was driving to a party I hadn't yet arrived to.  ....like....they ask you where you're going, when they really shouldn't.  It's none of your fucking business where I'm going.  But you can't say that.

^^^^ Re your Pubix analogy: would it be too much to ask that cops have at least a fraction of the skill set in deescalation that is required of a shift supervisor at a Pubix?

Not too much to ask.  I'm not defending cops who escalate.  But also, when cops don't escalate, we should let them do their job respectfully.  It doesn't mean we have to submit and comply.  But we don't have to be assholes.

There is a power discrepancy, so it's super important that both parties are respectful or shit can get out of hand really quick.