Is there an actual law that black people aren't allowed

You guys are all pissed off about this story likes its the biggest outrage of racism run rampant in America.....Did you guys know there are still towns in the south that have signs up saying "no n***ggers allowed after 9pm"? The racism never disappeared and it never will.


People need to stop acting surprised that this is the world we live in. Yes we should try and change people and try to convince everyone that all races are equal and we should all sit next to the campfire and sing kumbaya and be joyful. Thats not the reality of life.

I am not myself racist but I am not ignorant to the realities that go on around me. Blacks, which represent only about 15% of the population are responsible for violent crimes at staggering rate. These are facts and cannot be ignored

Read this if you don't believe

 https://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

I encourage you to analyze the chart on page 3

These are the percentages of crimes committed by blacks taken from multiple federal and state databases. In this case, we are talking rape/sexual assault which are committed by roughly 34% black people (again, only 15% of the population)

So before you say "wow that cop was so out of line and racist" at least know the facts about the situation. it was sketchy as hell and should have been investigated whether the man was black or white. But dont you sit there and think for a second that these cops dont understand these same statistics

Knowledge is power.

 out of curiousity, which towns??

you're missing the point.  our constitution, which people think is important at least when it applies to their own rights (perhaps not so much when it applies to other people's rights), requires specific indications that a crime is being committed before the police can arrest someone, which they did in this case. 

i'll ask one more time, someone tell me what crime this guy committed that justifies an arrest under our constitution?   if you can't answer that question, you either don't understand basic constitutional principles and/or you just don't care about constitutional protections as they apply to other people (only when you are the victim).

now, what you've said in your last email is more rational.  sure, the cops can knock on the window and ask questions to check it out.  the constitution allows this.  no one is saying it doesn't.  but upon doing this, if there is no specific indication that the guy is committing a crime, the cops cannot arrest him. 

our constitution differentiates between a cop asking questions if they think something is suspicious, which they can almost always do, and a cop arresting a person, which they can only do if there is specific evidence of a crime. 

he/they didn't do anything

they absolutely got arrested.  there's no question about this.  being handcuffed and taken to some location is 100% without a doubt an arrest.  any lawyer with any idea of criminal law will tell you this.

you are right that usually, although certainly not always, an arrest is followed by criminal charges but an arrest and criminal charges are two distinct processes.  an arrest is when a police officer does what he does here.  criminal charges are when a prosecutor files actual charges against a person. 

beyond that, we don't know there was suspicious activity.  that's an opinion.  but if we assume the cop thought it was suspicious, he does have a right to knock on the window and ask questions.  i'm not sure what you mean by reasonable doubt but that is not a legal concept that applies in this context. 

if they were kidnapping the kid, then yes, the police could arrest them.  but the police cannot arrest someone based on ifs and what might happen.  if this was the standard, then the constitutional protection would be meaningless.  the police can only arrest based on specific facts indicating a crime is taking place. 

but you have to differentiate between a cop asking questions to see if there may be evidence of a crime, which a cop can do, and an arrest which again this was without any doubt whatsoever.   a cop can ask questions based on ifs and what might be.   a cop can only arrest based on specific evidence, not ifs and maybes.  your constitution protects you from such government intrusions based on pure speculation of a crime.

i know people misunderstand what an"arrest" is based on tv but this is a pretty good definition.

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go.

Club said this pretty well, but let's change the scenario.

Friday night, you go out with friends. You are the designated driver and you bring people home. You drop everyone off and are headed home yourself. You commit no driving infractions but see blue lights behind you. You pull over and the officer comes to your window and asks you what you are doing. You tell him you were the DD and he asks you to get out of the car saying that "people driving in this area are usually drunk." Despite you doing nothing wrong, he hancuffs you, puts you in his cruiser, and takes you to the station. There, you wait for an hour, blow into a machine which shows 0.0 and you are released.

If you say you weren't arrested, you are lying.

an arrest without question.  and obviously an illegal arrest.  but i could try to justify it using some of the arguments people in this thread used by saying- well, a lot of young people drive drunk late at night on a saturday night and this was right down the street from the local bar so the cop had a right to assume the guy was drunk and check it out further by taking him to the station and having him blow in the breathalyzer.

let me give you guys another example that actually happened recently although some insignificant details will be changed to protect the (potentially) innocent


Haitian guy is driving a rental car along a major highway.  Cop camped out on the side of the road sees him and pulls him over.  Cop says he pulled Haitian guy over for following too closely.  Cop gives Haitian guy a warning for the traffic violation and then starts talking about drugs.  Cop asks Haitian guy if he has any drugs in the vehicle.  Haitian guy denies having any drugs.  Cop has drug dog with him and has drug dog walk around the vehicle.  Drug dog "alerts" to the odor of narcotics coming from vehicle.  Cop searches vehicle and finds no drugs or anything else illegal.  Cop does, however, find $10,000 in cash wrapped in two bundles under the passenger seat. 

Can cop arrest Haitian guy?

Can cop seize the $10,000 in cash?

Can state keep the $10,000 in cash?

Well- how about this scenario-

And it's an honest question- I really don't know-

Suppose I dress up in camo head to toe-put on a ski mask- and take my pistol with me (along with permit to carry)-

I proceed to sit on a park bench across the street from the local bank with 3 of my friends- dressed similarly-

A policeman comes up and asks what we are doing- because we look suspicious- we answer just hanging out in the park- as is our legal right-

Should he just move on- nothing to see here?

Or say to himself- this sounds like a bullshit story- plausible but still sounds like bullshit to me- and detain us until he can sort out what really is going on?

A bit more extreme example I'll cede- but based on the responses so far- it seems to be a similar point-

I guess this is kind of what I meant by probable cause-

These guys had a completely innocent explanation-which turned out to be true- but on the surface had to seem like a bullshit story until it was sorted out- the only option other than taking them in and sorting it out, would be to make a decision on the spot based on a strange (even if true) story and a document that may (or may not) have been real- with limited ability to verify in the middle of the night-

As an aside- I'm not sure how completely legal parking your car in a parking lot overnight and sleeping is- again- may be just fine, but I would think not-

It's a slippery slope granted- but IMO some discretion has to be allowed and tolerated-

 

Also- what, in legal terms, would be the difference in being detained then released and being arrested with no charges filed-

 

Again- not really trying to be a smartass about this- but it's not clear to me how the policeman was in the wrong here-and in violation of someone's constitutional rights-

I'm on the side of the cops in this situation but everything I've read in the past does say this is an arrest. By definition it looks like it became an arrest when they brought them to the police station. Detaining them would have meant they stayed where they were and the police did all of the investigating where they made the confrontation.

Now saying all that, I have no problem with what they did so the term "arrest" doesn't matter to me. It's easier to get things done at the station then to go back and fourth with people over the radio.

dsn, in that first scenario, the cop should go up to them and ask those questions.  the people in the vehicle have every right to ignore him.  if they ignore him or just give some innocuous answer, the cop is welcome to hang out and watch them, go to the bank and want them or so anything that does not interfere with their right to sit in their car dressed however they want and not breaking any laws. 

arguably, because of the ski mask, the cop could briefly detain them to see if there is any evidence on them or in the car indicating they are committing a crime or about to but absent specific evidence of a crime, the cop must let them go on their way pretty quickly.

Also- what, in legal terms, would be the difference in being detained then released and being arrested with no charges filed

this is a legal issue that is argued in courts every day.  there really is no firm answer, it depends on the circumstances.  but basically, a detention still requires some indication of criminal activity but less than what is needed for an arrest.  a detention is generally brief and does not involve handcuffing a person and taking them to the police station or basically anywhere.  it could still be a detention if a person is handcuffed and placed in the patrol car briefly just so the cop can do a quick search without interference.

an arrest requires more specific evidence of criminal activity.  it can't be based on suspicion or what might be.  an arrest usually involves a longer detention, handcuffs (although not necessarily) and taking the person to a different location for whatever reason.

as an example, the situation with the black guy and the white girl is an arrest without question.

the situation with the Haitian guy is probably a detention although it could be an arrest if certain facts were changed or added.

i would pretty much agree with this but you need to qualify this statement by disclosing that you are an ultra liberal who worships the government and believes they can do whatever they want regardless of what the constitution says as long as it's being done to someone else.

Thanks for the answer-

So, why would the ski mask matter? It's a perfectly legal form of clothing and doesn't imply anything- just looks strange- but we've established that things looking strange or suspicious is irrelevant-

it may not.  it's arguable.  kind of depends on the circumstances.  is this colorado in january or alabama in july?  one could argue that if it's alabama in july, there's no legitimate reason to have a ski mask so the cops could detain them briefly to see if there was actual evidence of criminal activity.  but again, if the brief detention did not result in actual evidence, the cop has to move on.  the cop can be suspicious all day but suspicion is not a constitutional basis to start ordering people around any longer or make an arrest.

nothing prevents the cop from setting up right next to them and waiting or taking their names down or getting the license tag or anything else non-intrusive.

You have taken the affirmative step to wear the ski-mask and possess the weapon.

The only affirmative steps taken in this case were having the girl with them and sleeping in the car.

But here is the real question....same scenario, but the guys are white.

Same outcome?

And we can even add that kidnapping cases are 95% committed by the same race.

 

yeah, that matters too.  can the cop see the pistol or is it (legally) concealed.

if a guy is wearing a ski mask in warm weather and a gun is visible, certainly that is enough for the cop to investigate further.  it's not illegal so the cop can't arrest but further investigation would be legitimate. 

I might be wrong, but I think the poster you responded to has complained about the TSA. Irony.....

are we talking about this kidnapping fiasco but everyone is white?