Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm going to disagree and say they do and you do too. Its incredulous to me that you haven't already had it.
If they had arrested her, they'd have a civil suit on their hands. They might have one anyway. I bet you don't see anything wrong with many other cases where the public has paid millions because of over zealous cops.
Don't back down in the face of adversity? You're way out there if you think that woman was a threat.
If it were me on patrol, I'd simply driven past her to make sure she wasn't drunk then moved on to real police work
Again - you are full of accusations but have not shown any specific evidence that would indicate they need "diversity training".
What is it specifically that you can point to in this situation that alludes to a racial event?
What is it that exhibits to you the cops did anything but investigate a crime, as defined by TX state law, after they witnessed it and another citizen complained about it?
Just driving past that woman would not have provided any opportunity for them to assess her state of mind, etc. Like it or not, SCOTUS case law allows that once reasonable suspicion has been established, verifying ID and asking questions to ascertain the status of a person IS ALLOWABLE under the Constitution. How do they know anything about her until they ask questions? For all they know, she may have had a warrant against her. I have lost track of the times I've arrested someone for a valid warrant, simply having the RS of a traffic stop as the means of contact.
It is possible that a civil suit could get filed; there is nothing that stops anyone from filing a suit. But it very likely would have been dropped or dismissed due to a baseless claim. Your inflammatory language aside, there is NOTHING to indicate that this event was racially driven. There is CLEAR evidence of her committing a crime; that is plainly obvious in the video, and substantiated by a third party civilian complaint. Further, there was absolutely no use-of-force used in the contact context. so please be specific and tell us where you believe her civil rights were violated, and make sure you use examples of legal precedence to support your claims.
Also, for those of you whom don't pay close attention, I ask that you go back and watch the video and then read the Chief's account. This was a training event. The officer that did most of the speaking was a trainee; the other is an FTO (field training officer). Note that the trainee is doing the work and the FTO is generally observing. This is totally normal in this kind of work. The FTO is allowing the trainee to develop his "case" as it presents itself. As taken from the outset, this was a crime committed in the presence of two cops; they have a sworn obligation to investigate it and they did. The FTO was likely using this opportunity as a means to judge the skills and discretion of the trainee. The FTO is there to reinforce good behaviors and inhibit/correct bad ones. So as much as this was a little incident, it was a great chance for the FTO to see how the rookie handled himself.
Again, here are the facts:
Woman commits crime twice; citizen complains and cops witness.
Cops approach and ask for ID; establish credibility and assess state of mind.
Cops offer advice for safety and give verbal warning rather than arrest.
Event ends with no one thrown to the ground, no raised voices, no verbal threats, no guns drawn, etc.
So puh-leeeezeee tell me where you think the cops violated her rights, and what they did that makes you think they need a more diverse approach. Be specific; what words were spoken, what tone was taken, what directives were given that indicates this was anything but a simple LE training interaction? Ask yourself this question ...
Had this been a white male that was stopped, what can you point to that would have shown an improper action taken by the police?
BTW - I do get diversity training every year. And I do work in a very diverse area quite often. Your incredulous attitude belies my actual training and experience; I have far more skills than you seem to want to recognize. I counter with this:
How much LEO training do you have under your belt?
Again, I encourage you to go on a ride-along, but please take with you an open mind and not your preconceived notions. And then take some legal classes, so that you understand what Statutory and Case laws exist.
PS - when I spoke of not backing down in the face of adversity, I was speaking generically and not specific to this woman. However, I do stand by the concept of ignoring one's race in terms of investigations. If race is a key descriptive indicator, it should be used in refining the suspect class; if not, then it should be ignored. I will not turn away from an investigation simply because I'm concerned that I might get sued. If that were the measure of every LEO interaction, no one would ever be stopped because EVERY interaction has the POTENTIAL for a suit.
PSS - ANYONE is a potential threat, by the way! Admittedly the level of the threat varies depending upon the situation, but for you to assert that she was no threat shows your complete ignorance of how many times officers die in the line of duty because the potential threat becomes a life/death situation.
