Why is the "knee jerk" reaction to a lot of things "fire them!"?

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure about that, the one time I was stopped, I got my name and age radio'd in. If there's a warrant out for her, or if the name and DOB given don't match what she says (For example, if there is no Ms. Bland in the area that she just claimed to live in) that'd be worth an eyebrow raise. Or if dispatch says "Yeah, actually, someone reported being attacked by a black female about that age just five minutes ago. Can you give a more detailed description?"

But, see, ironically that scenario would invite the specter of racial profiling. Running a warrant check on a perfectly cordial black female out for her morning jog in an affluent neighbourhood? There's no law saying you're not allowed to jog in an area you don't live in.

[Canarr]

But, see, ironically that scenario would invite the specter of racial profiling. Running a warrant check on a perfectly cordial black female out for her morning jog in an affluent neighbourhood? There's no law saying you're not allowed to jog in an area you don't live in.

This is most of my issue with this. Stopping someone to issue a warning for obstructing traffic, okay. But having her checked by Dispatch does smack of racial profiling.

[Hyena Dandy]

My understanding of the procedure (from what I've heard from my friends in Law Enforcement) is to run a check for anyone you stop for any reason, just in case. Though that may be only his local area, which is far from mine.

[s_stabeler]

1. this was explicitly an opinion piece- and clearly identified as such. ( it was an op-ed, which are always opinion pieces. As such, journalistic integrity doesn't actually apply. ( as long as an opinion piece is clearly identified as such, then the same standards don't apply. Oh, you can still be sued for libel, but you don't have to prove what you are saying.
2. Her belief she was being profiled wasn't actually unreasonable- regardless of the reason why she was asked for ID, to the person who it stopped, it would look like they were stopped by the police out of the blue, and ID demanded. That is fairly close to racial profiling.(which is stopping someone just because of their race)
3. the question is if she deserves to be fired. Considering her op-ed did not, in fact, call for the officers to be disciplined, then no, I don't think she deserves to be fired- as for an apology, I'm in two minds, but i'd say she shouldn't need to apologise. What she wrote was identified as an op-ed AND a response by the department was published alongside the op-ed- meaning that the department was allowed to share it's side of the story just as prominently. In short, it was actually a very good example of how a possibly-controversial opinion should be handled- the piece was clearly identified as an opinion piece, and the subject was allowed to offer a response to be published alongside the piece- meaning that anybody who actually read the piece in question would get both sides of the story. And yet, she is lumped in with people who pass off their opinion as facts.

[Kheldarson]

My understanding of the procedure (from what I've heard from my friends in Law Enforcement) is to run a check for anyone you stop for any reason, just in case. Though that may be only his local area, which is far from mine.

I got pulled over recently for an expired registration. White female here. The officer took my license and registration, went back to his car, came back and told me why he had pulled me over, and then asked me to wait until he got radioed back. Dispatch told him I was clear and off I went.

So, yeah, I think they radio in for any kind of stop.

[Gravekeeper]

So, yeah, I think they radio in for any kind of stop.

Its standard practice to radio in a traffic stop as they're running the vehicle as well as you. To make sure its not stolen and that the plates match the vehicle. Aside from the vehicle they're also checking the status of your license. And yes, they are checking if you have a warrant, are on parole/probation and whether or not there are any notes in the system about you ( aka you are "known to police" ).

But that's a traffic stop with a vehicle involved. Running someone you by all accounts only mean to give a friendly warning too is a little more unusual. As the main purpose behind running name and DOB is to check warrant/parole status and whether or not you've had prior run ins with the cops.

[Shangri-laschild]

I get that. But for a warning, it wouldn't really be necessary to ask Dispatch about a black female and radio in her name and DOB, would it?

My department actually runs most of the people we interact with when it involves the officer needing to stop and talk to the person. Sometimes the person doesn't get run until after the interaction is over but if a report is involved then we definitely always run the person. We even had to start putting something in all the reports stating that the person was run "per department policy" after a sex offender got caught working at the college (doing grounds but at one point he was mowing the area outside of the daycare) and he claimed that we had singled him out. We had always run everyone before that but now to avoid trouble, the line goes in reports. If we help someone with their vehicle, we always run their name. Same with if we get information from them about a potential issue. Warrants aren't the only thing that pop up when you run someone. Sometimes caution messages come up as an fyi. Those messages don't allow you to stop/search/detain/arrest someone purely based on the warning message but they do give the officer safety information.

It probably does vary between departments but running someone isn't that strange of a thing, and probably less than half the time is it in response to them doing something wrong. Sometimes it's for something as simple as wanting to have the person's information in the incident log so that if this becomes a repeat problem, they have record of that. It also allows the officers to find out if the department has had any previous interactions with her. We keep track of information for some people about medical issues because it affects how we can handle a medical with her when she has one of her seizures. It can also be helpful to keep track of mental illness so we can be more understanding of those who act in a manner that normally would be considered a bit suspicious. Stuff like that.

[Canarr]

Thanks for the background. Didn't know that.

[Hyena Dandy]

But that's a traffic stop with a vehicle involved. Running someone you by all accounts only mean to give a friendly warning too is a little more unusual. As the main purpose behind running name and DOB is to check warrant/parole status and whether or not you've had prior run ins with the cops.

I know it's not that unusual in some places. The context that the issue came up with when I was talking to my LEO friend was his expressing annoyance that he had to radio in anyone he talked to in an official capacity, even if they hadn't done anything illegal, even just 'kinda' illegal, since it rarely meant anything, and just delayed him and them.

Again, it might differ in other places. But I know I had my name, date of birth, and ID radio'd in for pretty much the same thing. And, if what is said is true, then they had even less reason to call me in, since I hadn't ended up unknowingly stopping a truck.

She's well within her rights to perceive it as racial profiling. Nothing I saw made me think she willfully represented events wrongly. Especially if, as the department said, someone had almost hit her and she hadn't noticed. Which means, by definition, she was unaware of that context, and human nature makes it so that even being made aware is unlikely to change that perception. She was presenting how the events looked and felt, and implicitly, that meant to her. That doesn't mean it IS racial profiling, but that doesn't mean it isn't, either. Since we don't know if that would normally get someone stopped, we don't know if she was actually nearly hit or that was made up later, we don't know if the department policy would have been to run her name and DOB. There's not enough information to call it racial profiling, or not racial profiling.

What there is, though, is enough information to say that, her representation of events, even if not perfectly accurate, is close enough to reality to appear to be based in fact. Had she claimed to have been violently assaulted, had a weapon drawn on her, etc, THAT would have been inaccurate. Even in an opinion piece, you're not entitled to make shit up. I don't know if I'd call for her to be fired, but if it went that far beyond the pale, I'd at least think she was behaving inappropriately. Far as I can tell, she wasn't. She posted a piece accurately describing events as she understood and experienced them.

[Gravekeeper]

Again, it might differ in other places. But I know I had my name, date of birth, and ID radio'd in for pretty much the same thing. And, if what is said is true, then they had even less reason to call me in, since I hadn't ended up unknowingly stopping a truck.

It varies from place to place and department to department, yeah. Hence yes, its not unreasonable of her to perceive racial profiling. Even if you were in a jurisdiction where its standard procedure I doubt the average person on the street would be aware of the policy or every subsection of the local traffic laws.

The only time I've ever been radio'n in is when I had to cross a crime scene ( ie cross the yellow tape ) on my way home from work 5 or 6 years back. Because the street where I live had been cordoned off. Someone had a little grow op going on down the street from me. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

I definitely agree that her perception of events as she reported them is reasonable. I don't know if it would be racial profiling because, again, I don't know if that's their policy to run everyone they talk to, I don't know if she really did almost get hit by someone, I don't know if if someone does, it would be normal to stop them. Those questions can't really be answered with what we have, she couldn't have answered given the info that was there.

Whether they REALLY did something wrong, I don't know. It is possible that this is just a misunderstanding.

[Gravekeeper]

Whether they REALLY did something wrong, I don't know. It is possible that this is just a misunderstanding.

Neither side really did anything wrong. Its sort of an unfortunate collision of circumstances. Bad experience with the cops on one side and a rookie cop trying to stick completely to the book in front of his supervisor in the other.

[Shangri-laschild]

I would say there is a line between feeling like your were racially profiled and writing an article about it before finding out the details like if it is department policy, if they do that with other people, if they had dealt with similar situations before, etc. Maybe it's just how I was raised that is effecting my opinion of that but I was taught to get all the information and not assume first. Especially not assume and go after someone for it. We've been teaching my niece that if she feels something is unfair, she doesn't get to throw a tantrum (not saying this woman threw a tantrum, that's specific to my niece) about it and take it out on people. Especially not before she knows all the facts about what's going on. While it is human nature to let our initial perception of an event have a lot of influence on our opinion of it even after the facts, for the most part the result is that we're punishing people for our assumptions. And lets say she is right and she was unfairly treated and racially profiled. Coming at it from this angle rather than getting the details and presenting all the facts isn't really as helpful for the argument she's trying to make anyway.

[Gravekeeper]

I would say there is a line between feeling like your were racially profiled and writing an article about it before finding out the details like if it is department policy, if they do that with other people, if they had dealt with similar situations before, etc.

Well, again, she wrote an editorial. Not a news story.

But honestly, American police aren't exactly known for explaining themselves to minorities unless the media gets involved. Let alone explaining themselves in general. You shouldn't have to follow up with the department to find things like that. The officers themselves should be able to explain.

Officers up here in Canuckistan always tell you what they're doing and why. But they're trained to de-escalate. Something that seems really lacking in a lot of American police departments.

Plus, her perception didn't occur in a vacuum. This is Texas after all.

[Shangri-laschild]

Well, again, she wrote an editorial. Not a news story.

But honestly, American police aren't exactly known for explaining themselves to minorities unless the media gets involved. Let alone explaining themselves in general. You shouldn't have to follow up with the department to find things like that. The officers themselves should be able to explain.

Officers up here in Canuckistan always tell you what they're doing and why. But they're trained to de-escalate. Something that seems really lacking in a lot of American police departments.

Plus, her perception didn't occur in a vacuum. This is Texas after all.

I would consider both types to fall under the category of article, which is why I used that term. I'm not saying she is wrong about being racially profiled. My points were that calling in someone's name like that isn't actually that strange of a thing, that responding with all the information helps your case more, and commenting on the idea that our up front assumptions about a situation effect our opinion of things later. Yes, there is definitely a problem with racist officers. While that fact should be taken into consideration, it also doesn't automatically make every report of an officer being racist accurate. As you said, the officers here tend to not always do as much explaining themselves which also makes the lack of explanation not necessarily a racist thing. I think my department is very lucky and helped in this case by the fact that our conduct is not just reviewed through police command but also through the president of the college. He can't tell us to do something illegal or not to arrest someone but if we're rude or not as communicative with people as we could be, we're probably going to hear about it. I think that helps keep us better balanced than some departments.

I think there is a lot on both sides of this. Yes, considering relations between police and minorities, making a point to explain things is a good idea. The new guys however tend to be a lot more likely to stick exactly to training when it's an every day type situation like this. Yeah, better training would help with this but if he wasn't racially profiling her, then it sounds like he did nothing wrong even if it could be handled differently. A lot of the information about if this was policy and how they handled other similar situations and how often different races were approached would all be covered under FOIA. Yes, him communicating with her would have been good. Yes, I'd say the burden of that should be more on the officer side but the officer not explaining to her doesn't mean she just gets to assume without looking into it. And lets say that she was completely profiled and they handled it differently for her than they would have for someone who was white....it still helps her story a lot more being able to show that information rather than just letting it be "I felt like I was racially profiled and like he was trying to find a reason to go after me" type thing.