Police Chief: Not Wanting To Talk To Police Officers Is Odd
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 7 months ago
This insight into how police think the public should interact with them is certainly enlightening. (via this tweet and Amy Alkon’s Advice Goddess blog)
The backstory is this: a woman was walking down the street when a motorcycle cop approached her, asked her if she lived in the area and if she would talk to him. She says his approach made her feel uncomfortable, so she refused and continued on her way.
“I thought that maybe he was flirting,” she said. “I just thought it was odd, I thought it was odd. I wasn’t really sure but I felt uncomfortable because there wasn’t anyone around.”
She says she was worried he might not even a real cop, so she refused to stop and began jogging away from him.
“He just crept along beside me on his motorcycle and he started saying, ‘Hey ma’am! I want to talk to you. Hey stop, ma’am! I want to talk to you.’ Then my anxiety rose even higher,” she said.
This was followed shortly thereafter by the cop dismounting, chasing her down, tackling her and placing her under arrest. The police chief claims this arrest was for “walking on the wrong side of the road,” (as well as “evading arrest” and “resisting arrest”) despite the fact that the woman wasn’t ultimately charged with anything.
Even if the preceding events could possibly be dismissed as hearsay, or something tainted by false impressions and emotions, there’s the police chief’s responses to questions about this interaction.
Whitehouse Police Chief Craig Shelton says this:
Shelton says by law you’re not required to stop and talk to an officer if there’s not a lawful reason for them to be stopping you.
But then he says this:
“Normally if a police officer pulls up, in my opinion, it’s awful odd for somebody just to take off and not want to speak to the police officer,” Shelton said.
Let’s rehearse this one more time for the uninitiated among us, even if the police chief is lying and knows it.
Do … not … ever … talk … to … the … police. Ever. Got it? Good.
|
|
On April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm, William Baker said:
Never? But what if you lost your call of duty match and the other guy needs swatted?
On April 27, 2014 at 6:56 pm, Bill Daigle said:
simple in my simple mind…cops are out of control because we the people have allwoed it, time to take our house back, Long live Clive Bundy
On April 30, 2014 at 7:33 am, Brendan Doran said:
I disagree. All the woman had to say is I’m alone and feel uncomfortable and he’s going to stop, unless he’s bent. Unlikely. He’s probably dumb and his chief is forced to defend him or be the boss that doesn’t back his subordinates when they need it, but this is a mistake and not oppression. Yes Sir, I’m sorry Sir but I’m going to have to refer you respectfully to my attorney.
Playing mute won’t work. At. All.
The actual position of the American police is they are stuck between an insane government and the clueless but dole check greedy voters who gave them the power. There are more laws on the books than can actually be counted [a verifiable fact] and the police have to daily judge what is going on. We didn’t let the cops get out of control [they’re not] we are stupid and greedy for the next check from Uncle Sugar, cuz we’re entitled. Well we’re entitled to the downside as well. We voted in our own slavery, this is how virtuous we are. We thought our neighbor would be the victim not us, this is how pure and noble we are. Which of us is out of control?
Now TSA? That’s bad law enforcement. But just a taste of the real world. Notice none are so mad to arm TSA.
Anyone who thinks American police are bad cops needs to get out to see the world and see what a real bad interface looks like, don’t stare or you’re in deep Kaka. Try Mexico for instance, and it can get much worse.
In the middle east or Africa the same scenario ends with gang rape at the station followed by ransom by the male relatives [who will be left with no doubt as to what happened] said ransom as much about Honor as love, certainly ending in the woman being unmarriageable and hence useless, if not an Honor Killing after being ransomed.
That’s bad police.
On April 30, 2014 at 9:08 am, Herschel Smith said:
Oh, I understand now. Why didn’t I see it before.
You’re right. A LEO has the right to beat the shit out of a woman all alone at night for jaywalking. I see now.
It’s called “losing the mandate of heaven,” and when you’ve lost it, you’ve lost everything. You keep telling yourself that this is justified. You are destroying the only thing that has any value to you at all – your moral authority. Without it, you’re nothing but a thug member of a gang, no better than MS-13.
Go ahead. Keep giving away your moral authority. I watching it happen with LEOs all across America every day. It’s a sad thing to behold, and LEOs are too ignorant and thoughtless to understand what they’re doing.
On April 30, 2014 at 10:08 am, Brendan Doran said:
I”m being practical, as are they. Daily. He may be a bad cop. However there’s a altogether Maoist agit-prop campaign against the police in America for decades.
Look I laid it out above. BTW I’m not law enforcement.
I think you are watching the news about LEO’s, yes? What do they say about the military in combat when it suits them?
The same nonsense that was used to criminalize police work is and was used on us the past decade, see ROE. Us is the military.
On April 30, 2014 at 10:34 am, Herschel Smith said:
I think you’re confused. The campaign against LEOs is related to the militarization of the police, as well as the “us-them” mentality we see today. When I was growing up, the most important thing for a cop wasn’t “going home safely at the end of his shift.”
On April 30, 2014 at 11:03 am, Brendan Doran said:
The police becoming militarized as crime or disorder increases is ancient, it happened in Rome. It happened in America starting in the 1970s as crime exploded, with political encouragement in some quarters of the criminals. Often in History when the constabulary is overwhelmed the military itself is used directly, that’s difficult in America due to Posse Comitatus. It was last done large scale after the Civil War. Most people wouldn’t disagree with the police getting sufficient firepower to outgun gangs of course.
Here’s what’s important about your post: that one is becoming like the other to the detriment of both and the general good. This is the consequence lawyering up war. We’ve taken our laws into war and begun by losing the war, now we’re losing our Laws. Remember however that both agencies are bound by orders. Then ask who is giving these orders.
Campaign against LE/Military same: See last comments, what was done to the military 2000s was done by same people and same methods starting in the 60s. Lawfare.
“”going home safely at the end of his shift.” That was the attitude of the police in the 70s, and can anyone blame them? Even now? The police actually didn’t adjust to being the number one bad guy in the public mind while still trying to control crime in real life until the 90s. They were rehabiliated publically about the time the Boomers hit middle age, roughly the same time the military was. After 9/11 we were both heroes for a time, then the villians again. Notice that we are never quite allowed to win.
On April 30, 2014 at 11:28 am, Herschel Smith said:
Lawyering up has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Stay on point. You’re living in Iraq, we live in America. The militarization of police isn’t related to anything except statism and collectivism.
I blame all LEOs who participate in the militarization of police in America. They will answer to God one day for their totalitarianism. God hates totalitarians. All of them, no exceptions.
On April 30, 2014 at 3:21 pm, Brendan Doran said:
I’m exactly on point. The point you’re missing. You seriously would debate Law enforcement’s role outside of context of Law and the Courts? Their entire profession has been twisted into grotesque parody by the Courts. Oh and I don’t live in Iraq I deployed there.
We live in America: and America is moving from the exceptional to the norm. Rather horribly. We don’t however as of yet have totalitarian law enforcement. You would know the difference. What is moving us towards this pass is not the police, it’s quite the legal and hence lawyer organs of the State, the Executive Branch, and the hapless Congress. Lawyers all of them, although the Law is simply a tool for power and money currently in the hands of sociopaths.
And frankly your enmity towards LE is so emotional you are unable to even register my points. Please consider them later.
On April 30, 2014 at 3:44 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I know exactly the point(s) you’re making. You want to fault the courts (there’s enough blame to go around, true enough), and laws. The problem is that my fault is different than your fault. I fault the courts for giving you your ridiculous raid warrants and allowing the militarization of police. No matter how hard you try, you cannot justify the militarization of police. There is no need for a war on anything. Learn to be a peace officer or a constable. Return to the way America was founded. If you have trouble with inner city violence because of that, then that’s a moral problem. Police, courts, and on and on you go, cannot ameliorate those problems.
As I said, stay on point or don’t comment.
On April 30, 2014 at 3:47 pm, Brendan Doran said:
I’m not LEO and never even applied or considered the job. Nothing wrong with the job, just not me.
Power is pushing this agenda, and it’s not the police. They just follow orders, sometimes.
Cheers
On April 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm, Herschel Smith said:
And so now we are at a point of agreement. Power is indeed pushing this thing. But there is one VERY important exception on which we disagree. LEOs will not be exonerated before God because someone above them is “pushing” this. LEOs, if they do the unconstitutional, immoral things they have been doing, are co-conspirators in evil.
On April 30, 2014 at 4:13 pm, Brendan Doran said:
And hence for very practical reasons we want them to sit on their hands.
As so many do already and more would.
Which might well mean cunning and hence not forcing those hands.
Cunning is quite permissible indeed desirable in conflict.
The police have a great deal of latitude in enforcing or even noting statutory violations of law [and that’s quite legal and of course essential in a society with more laws than can be counted]. They have the latitude unless situation dictates they must act to preserve the peace, or protect themselves or others.
My proposal is as much as possible we exempt them from political matters, including the terrible ones looming. My proposal is cunning.
Just consider it.
Now to change the subject do you ever examine or post on our rather pressing debt matters nationally? As an Irish extracted Amerian I find the entire edifice of interlocking debt fascinating.
cheers
On April 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm, Josh said:
For the length of your obnoxious comments, you sure don’t actually say a whole lot.
On May 19, 2014 at 10:43 am, GomeznSA said:
Hmmm, now if the motor cop had simply said something to the effect of ‘ma’am I’d like to talk to you about…………..’ – there MIGHT not have been an issue. Since no charges were filed, would the Citizen involved in this have a MAJOR lawsuit at hand, after all she did get physically assaulted and falsely arrested………………….
I seem to vaguely remember something about Citizens having a right to be secure in their persons, things and property which includes the right to freely move about.