|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 13, 2011 23:39:12 GMT -5
ltfred... it wasn't the officers who said anything looked suspicious. It was other passengers on the plane. The officers have to respond to the call, unfortunately. Horrible as it is, it's the law. No, they don't. Police do not have to respond to all calls. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of fake/bullshit/crazy calls the police get every day. They also don't have to go to such an extreme if they do respond. If cops want to Cover Their Arse, they can do so by simply calling the cockpit and getting a search, or by questioning the suspects upon landing. Now, I'm all for investigating everything suspicious in aircraft, particularly on that day- but nothing was suspicious. Black people are not suspicious. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 1:49:04 GMT -5
They were going on eyewitness reports claiming that the three were behaving suspiciously. There was no way of knowing that "acting suspiciously" really meant "being brown on an air plane" until they'd conducted an investigation. I agree that they should have handled things differently once they had the three of them detained (the strip search in particular should never have been performed without real evidence of wrong-doing), but responding to and investigating the report wasn't wrong, in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 14, 2011 2:10:21 GMT -5
Here's a secret technique to divine such information:
"What do you mean by 'acting suspiciously'?"
It is my understanding that asking questions is standard procedure in a 9-1-1 call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 2:39:47 GMT -5
Here's a secret technique to divine such information: "What do you mean by 'acting suspiciously'?" It is my understanding that asking questions is standard procedure in a 9-1-1 call. Yeah, but it's not like the individual(s) who made the call would have openly admitted that the only basis for the report was skin colour. People often try to justify their prejudice by hyperbolizing what they actually saw. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 14, 2011 3:31:44 GMT -5
I kind of wonder what they are meant to do after the fact and the plane has landed anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 14, 2011 6:16:10 GMT -5
Even if there was a credible threat, they denied her constitutional rights. She has the right to a lawyer Only if she is arrested. A detainment for investigation is not an arrest. That's only in court. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2011 6:17:06 GMT -5
One thing that should be noted is that when some people see someone being handcuffed and taken away, that they did something and are being arrested for it.
Not that they're arrested on suspicion, but that they actually did do something wrong.
I wonder how many passengers on that plane thought they had just been rescued from three terrorists?
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 14, 2011 6:20:13 GMT -5
One thing that should be noted is that when some people see someone being handcuffed and taken away, that they did something and are being arrested for it. Logical assumption, but not legally valid. Multiple courts have held that officers can handcuff a suspect for safety purposes. Handcuff /= arrest. (If you weren't making that argument, sorry.) Sadly, probably a lot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 14, 2011 10:00:10 GMT -5
Only if she is arrested. A detainment for investigation is not an arrest. She was question, as a suspect, without a lawyer. And strip searched without probable cause. And fingerprinted. She was arrested in all but name. |
|
|
|
Post by anon87311 on Sept 14, 2011 13:47:43 GMT -5
she should have asked for a lawyer straight away. end of story.
But...words can not express how angry I am at this. How sick and tired I am of ignorant people. I hate people. stop the planet. I want off now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2011 15:36:38 GMT -5
One thing that should be noted is that when some people see someone being handcuffed and taken away, that they did something and are being arrested for it. Logical assumption, but not legally valid. Multiple courts have held that officers can handcuff a suspect for safety purposes. Handcuff /= arrest. (If you weren't making that argument, sorry.) Actually, I wasn't making that argument. I was merely pointing out that people assume that handcuffs = the person getting handcuffed was doing something wrong. And sadly, despite being an arrest in all but name, this technically counts as detainment. It shouldn't, but it did. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 14, 2011 22:39:44 GMT -5
This kind of thing is precisely why I'm nervous about traveling in the US. but you're white, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 23:01:28 GMT -5
This kind of thing is precisely why I'm nervous about traveling in the US. but you're white, aren't you? White as in Caucasian (aside from a bit of Native), but with a bunch of dark ethnicities. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 14, 2011 23:17:12 GMT -5
White as in Caucasian (aside from a bit of Native), but with a bunch of dark ethnicities. ...Mommy...The dark lady's talking to me! I kid, of course. In my youth, I was dark enough to get called a spic and other such terms. Then I got migraines, stopped approaching sunlight because my head would implode, and got consistantly fairer. I could probably MAKE myself tan that dark, but it's not worth the BS. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 14, 2011 23:22:47 GMT -5
I'm white, but I tan very easily. It could be because of my native american ancestry, but I'm not sure.
|
|
