Log In | Register
A white grandfather describes his second encounter with the police while walking down the street with his black granddaughter. This time, 9 squad cars were sent, lights blazing...
Nearly arrested for 'Babysitting While White" in Texas
Seeded on Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:21 AM EST
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (132)
In a time when biracial relationships and children are becoming so commonplace, it's amazing we still have idiots like this running around. Nine cop cars called b/c a man was simply walking down the street with his grandchild.
- 37 votes
Based on what, walking down the street? That's the point. What made him suddenly seem suspicious, in both of the incidents he described (he had a similar occurrence in 2008).
- 29 votes
To be fair, 9 cop cars were sent because some non-police idiot called in a reported a "kidnapping".
- 18 votes
Right - based on NOTHING. They decided to call the police for literally no reason other than they saw a white man with a black child. They ASSUMED it just had to be a kidnapping (or they were angry and wanted to give him a hassling to "teach him a lesson").
But if you read the story, he had already spoken with a constable and had been allowed to go on his way. She called the 9 cars herself after having already cleared him, or she failed to call them off once they'd already been called. The point is, she knew by the end of the initial contact that it wasn't a kidnapping; the grandfather and the child should not have been put through all of that.
- 27 votes
I think, for the safety of the child, the police, have to assume the worst, and send cops to investigate.
- 5 votes
Yes, I agree. However, they should have first asked the caller why they think the child was kidnapped. Based on what? And they should have asked who the person was; once they realized it was only a stranger that felt that a white man with a black child was suspicious, and that it wasn't a parent calling in their own child having been kidnapped, that should have been their first clue there was no wronggoing.
In addition, after the first cop - the constable - did speak to him and clear him (she let him go) that should have been the end of it.
why did she then allow the other 9 cars to come and hassle him, taking part herself?
- 28 votes
I think, for the safety of the child, the police, have to assume the worst, and send cops to investigate.
Yes, but as the author said to the Constable, "This is on YOU!" If there was a perceived threat, the proper time to detain the man was IN THE BEGINNING - once the Constable "verified" his ID and that there was no threat, that should have ended it. If the Constable had reservations, she should have further detained the man and waited for backup to "investigate".
Had this been an actual incident (God forbid), the Constable (the fat fck who was out of breath from the WALK over to the older man and little girl) would have been responsible had something terrible happened, whether it was a police shooting, or an actual kidnapping.
Police have a responsibility to use more than reasonable care when confronting citizens - that's why we have rules regarding probable cause, reasonable suspicion and protocols regarding when/how to detain and arrest. The initial detention was reasonable (stop and ID), but the moment the man was let go, it should have ended....that it didn't was a gross breach of protocol and put everyone in potential danger.....and resulted in a 5-yr-old being emotionally scarred and distrusting of the police.
(bonos, sorry for stepping on your toes here - it took me a bit longer to type out my thoughts)
- 12 votes
Right - based on NOTHING.
No argument.
But if you read the story, he had already spoken with a constable and had been allowed to go on his way. She called the 9 cars herself after having already cleared him, or she failed to call them off once they'd already been called.
I didn't read it that way, but I'll go back and check it again.
The point is, she knew by the end of the initial contact that it wasn't a kidnapping; the grandfather and the child should not have been put through all of that.
Well, they should not have been put through all that for a myriad of reasons on a myriad of levels.
- 9 votes
bonos, sorry for stepping on your toes here
You aren't stepping on my toes at all! Thank you for the comment.
- 7 votes
. Nine cop cars called b/c a man was simply walking down the street with his grandchild.
Being that it's in Texas, maybe it was reported that a small black child, who looks to be around five years old, was seen kidnapping an elderly white man.
- 26 votes
I'm a single (white) father of a bi-racial daughter, myself, but she definitely carries more of her mother's genes than mine (layman's terms - she looks black). While I've never had an experience to the level this man has suffered, I've had to brush off my share of "concerned" looks from mothers and others when we're playing at the park or walking down the street.
If it ever escalated to the point where she and I were physically detained, I'm not sure I could muster as much grace and patience as this man did.
- 20 votes
The ONLY part of this story that couldn't have gotten any worse is if the grandfather was black and the child white.
"Seize first and ask questions later" is better than "shoot first,"
In this gentle grandfather's case, very much preferable.
- 14 votes
Child aductions is a problem, but we're going to have to learn to deal with multi-racial families.
It's the future.
- 13 votes
As a Brit I find this incident very disturbing, as I wondered what they would have done to him if the roles were reversed and the man was black! And as my grandson is more white than black, if I were walking down the street with him, would I be stopped too?
This truly is frightening! It really demonstrates the nasty undercurrent of the effect of racism of any kind. :o(
- 15 votes
And as my grandson is more white than black, if I were walking down the street with him, would I be stopped too?
That's an interesting scenario, Ms. Cyprah, as it introduces another factor: gender. I'm sure you would seem less stereotypically "threatening" since you're female. Whether that's good or bad, the perception exists; the fact is, as a woman, they probably wouldn't see you and first think "kidnapping."
- 9 votes
This truly is frightening! It really demonstrates the nasty undercurrent of the effect of racism of any kind. :o(
We're talking a lot about racism here, but I think that's only one of many factors. Keep in mind, we're just a few weeks past a time where Jerry Sandusky was on the news every day. I think the whole issue of child protection is more to the front of everyone's mind, and I think Joe Paterno helped make us all more cognizant of the importance of getting involved.
Sometimes the people who get involved don't think matters through clearly. There is an old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but that doesn't mean we should abandon them.
The real issue here to me is the way it was handled by the APD. With even 3 squad cars, do we really to handcuff a grandpa? There was an opportunity to make this a mildly inconvenient but overall not unpleasant experience for everyone involved.
- 8 votes
Things have gotten so crazy that it's hell getting old. A grandpa can't even smile when he sees a nice young family with a small child at Walmart because the kid is well behaved. They think you are a crazy old pervert about to grab their kid!
It is so bad that we old guys have to make sure that we have a notarized note from our daughters when we travel with our grandchildren, something I've done on several occasions.
I can just imagine what this grandpa and his granddaughter went through. I give this gentleman a lot of credit. The police probably would have had reason to handcuff me the minute my granddaughter went out of sight into that police car.
- 9 votes
The only way we could give these cops a by, is if this was their first encounter with the grandfather. Since one constable had stopped and subsequently let him go, she should've been the first to step up and say everything was OK.
She didn't and so the grandfather is correct - "it is on her".
- 4 votes
Good grief, BONOS, we agree again! This is, I believe, twice now.
I respect police and I understand they have a difficult job to do. If someone called in a complaint of a possible abduction, they couldn't just do nothing.
But once the child said, "he's my grandpa," and clung to his leg, that should have been that. Any police action aside from "I'm sorry, sir," after that moment in time was sheer idiocy.
- 9 votes
Geek,
That has been my point all along - at that point, any reasonable suspicion or probable cause goes out the window - his ID was confirmed, the threat eliminated (or the threat of a threat being there) and that's that - the Constable verified his ID and the relationship status, there was no need to go further.
And for the record, "better to be safe than sorry" is not an acceptable excuse - if there was a true concern, the Constable should have detained him until backup from APD arrived, NOT LET HIM GO like she did. In doing so, she confirmed that there was no threat....if she had reservations, she screwed up.....And while this conduct was not criminal (and likely not tortuous either), it was still unprofessional and just plain wrong.
- 5 votes
Good grief, BONOS, we agree again! This is, I believe, twice now.
Oh oh. Are you rubbing off on me, or vice versa? I think there are pills for that. ;)
- 3 votes
Oh oh. Are you rubbing off on me, or vice versa? I think there are pills for that. ;)
Well, you've challenged me to think more often than most other Viners on your side of the aisle, not only because you're an able debater, but because you generally stick to the issues and remain civil, avoiding personal attacks, empty rhetoric, and so forth.
I respect that, and therefore I respect what you have to say -- even though we usually disagree.
- 2 votes
Thank you, geek on the wing. That's very nice to hear. And -
but because you generally stick to the issues and remain civil, avoiding personal attacks, empty rhetoric, and so forth.
Likewise. It's much appreciated, too.
- 2 votes
I read the article. The child was hesitant when she was questioned as to the identity of her grandpa. Worst is the fact that she started to cry.
Even if I was the policeman involved, I would start to question the validity of the girl's answer. She might have been coerced into her answers and that the person actually is not related to her and would have done her harm. I believe that the police force did the same error that any sane man will do in order to protect the kid.
I blame the error to the grandpa. He should have trained the child how to answer and be frank with her that the difference in the color of their skin, although it does not matter to him, would at times be a subject for contention as in the case of kidnapping for rape and/or child pornography.
This is a clear cut case of refusing to accept reality. This grandpa only believes in his own truth which may not be in line with reality because of the growing cases of kidnapping and violence. I respect his convictions of racial equality but I find his judgement in error when it comes to raising his granddaughter in the same mold as he is, when the kid is still too young to understand. When the child is older and could readily understand then, he can stick to his conviction that it is nobody's business but his own since the child now at least an adolescent or an adult can take the stand on her own.
The child was hesitant when she was questioned as to the identity of her grandpa. Worst is the fact that she started to cry.
AFTER being stopped. That goes back to square one. WHY were they stopped to begin with? No good answer has yet come forth.
And one the cop began to question her - she asked her the same question several times - it was no wonder she began to cry. Children aren't used to being grilled by strangers. Hell, they aren't supposed to talk to them at all, remember? Once the girl said he's my grandpa AND hugged his leg, that should have been enough. A little girl that has just been abducted is so extremely unlikely to hug her abductor that it's nearly out of the realm of likelihood.
I still want to know why THIS man was stopped and questioned out all of the other parents and children that left that ice skating center that evening.
- 3 votes
The article said that somebody called in and suspicion was raised.
I know that. I want to know what the hell was so suspicious about this man walking down the street with his grandchild; I want to know why out of all of the people leaving that ice skating rink in that neighborhood, why was HE singled out as "suspicious"?
- 1 vote
if you took the time to actually go read the mans blog, he indicated at times his grand-daughter would venture ahead, and he actually had to trot (read run) to keep up with her. to someone that looked out a window, it MAY appear as a older man, chasing a young child.
Yes, and that's an entirely typical behavior at 5 years old. I doubt NO other child that evening was trotting ahead of their parent. And if a person can't tell the difference between a child trotting merrily and full out running out of fear, that's ridiculous. I don't for a moment believe it.
- 2 votes
even if it was obvious that there was no criminal intent, what is your point in going on and on about it. it happened, its the past. move on. You just taking this opportunity to bash on the way the police handled it.
Had this been an actual crime, and the police ignored it. You would be sitting at your keyboard complaining about how they ignored a call of suspicious behavior and this led to a crime happening.
so the police followed up a call, and so this man had a bad experience with the police. so what. to what point are you on the Vine going on about it??
If you don't like that I"m "going on and on about it" you are free to move to a different seed. Otherwise, coming back over and over means you, too, are "going on and on about it".
I will continue to rail against the police when they blow up a situation into something is is obviously not - when they curtail someone's freedoms, as they did. After all, this is not Commmunist China, as much as some people would apparently like living in that kind of freedomless society.
After the first time the cop ascertained he was the girl's grandfather, why the hell did she then allow 9 more cop cars to come and molest the pair?
- 1 vote
#1.34 inflammatory and off-topic. Reported.
No derailing on my seed.
- 1 vote
once again, did you read the original blog???
the first officer ( not cop. they usually find that derogatory) was from a different department that the other. She was, if I recall a Deputy Sheriff, where as the others were from the Austin PD. Many times call overlap, its possible she had not radioed the call clear. Its possible you jump to conclusions in an attempt to prove your point.
Once again, the man was inconvenienced, not molested not arrested. The officers have to do their job, which sometimes includes questioning innocent people.End of story.
As to why I come back?? So that the rest of the Viners who read this can see something other than you beating a dead horse. Also to keep you from denigrating 9 officers you never met as racist and thugs. You weren't in Austin that night, they were!
I am sure the situation that night was not as obvious as your 20/20 hindsight allows you think you are. No one's freedoms were curtailed.
Yes, I read it. She cleared the man to go on his way, and then allowed 9 more police cars to harass the man and his daughter for no reason and curtail their freedom to move about at will, as is their rights as Americans.
You are free to come back all you want. Whether you do or don't, I'm not going to stop discussing this topic. here or elsewhere.
You weren't in Austin that night, they were!
Neither were you. But this man and his granddaughter were, and I take his word for it.
I will keep coming back. Until you understand that the officers that night were doing their JOB!
They were not trying to "curtail anyone's freedoms" as you like to put it. The were attempting to stop what they thought was a crime against a young child. Whether you like it or not, that is what happened.
Well, keep beating that horse,, wannchubb. You will not convince me. In fact, the more you speak, the worse you make the cops seem.
Wannachubb & bonos_rama
Both of you have valid points. I know, I've lived it.
Can you both simply agree to disagree, move on, and have no hard feelings towards each other?
Yes, the police had a duty to investigate the incident. It should have been over after the contact with the Deputy Constable.
But, they should have done it in a way that did not scare the @!$%# out of a 5 year old, or cause embarrassment to her grandfather.
And, once the familial ties were evident, they should have apologized for the inconvenience and moved on, leaving the grandfather happy that they cared enough to make sure things were OK.
What APD did was overkill, and unnecessary. They need more training. Tact does not seem to be a part of their vocabulary. Also, the Deputy Constable should be reprimanded for allowing the situation to escalate.
- 2 votes
So directing a comment to another poster is now considered "inflammatory" on your seeds?
From the continued exchange it appears that it was spot on.
kyle and bonos
I can respect that. I never said that I thought it was handled 100% correctly, just that it had to be handled.
off to another vine I guess
- 1 vote
Okay, I know this will not be popular, but there is no too much when it comes to protecting an innocent child. I would rather the whole police force of the city converge upon them, then for a single policeman not to act when he could have saved a child. I agree it seemed to go way over the top, but I don't think the grandfather accomplished anything by his behavior. He was angry that he could not simply walk his granddaughter home which was rather understandable. However, he decided to make a statment of it, rather than understand the police were trying to keep his little granddaughter safe. It was to her defense they came. I think they handcuffed him and removed his granddaughter so that they could verify information while keeping him from running or doing anything and keeping his granddaughter safe.
There are, unfortunately, men of any color who could either trick a young child or terrorize a young child into believing whatever they want so that they can kidnap her/him. The police found out what the actual situation was and then let them go. If I were the grandfather, I would think about his feelings if his little granddaughter was tricked by a pedophile, they were questioned by the police and then let go because the granddaughter said her kidnaper was her grandpa. I don't think there was any intent to be harmful. but only to make sure the situation was as it was and not something else. As biracial marriages increase and the number of white parents with black children and visa versa increases, perhaps, it will seem much less suspicious. Definitely same color grandfathers and grandchildren walk home all the time. I imagine that in this part of Texas, the situation is unique enough that it warrants investigation, especially if there have been other instances of kidnapping.
There was no real confirmation that he was the child's grandfather when initial contact was made, beyond his granddaughter saying he was. There is a time and place to grandstand, but I don't think the grandfather did his little one any favors by deciding to do it then. He painted the police as the bad men. He should have said, it is okay go with the police. It will work out fine when they learn the truth. Then he could have said how the police were just trying to make sure she was safe which is what they were trying to do. It would be a whole different story if his granddaughter was being kidnapped and because of the persistence of a police officer was saved.
Okay, I know this will not be popular...
You're right, at least among those of us who treasure our rights and those of others. But because you expressed yourself well and civilly, I'll reciprocate in kind.
...but there is no too much when it comes to protecting an innocent child.
Nonsense.
I'm getting a little sick of the notion that any infringement of our rights is allowable because we are "protecting the children," or because of some other similar justification. This case is a prime example of how that oh-so-righteous-sounding justification can (and often does) become merely a convenient excuse for clear and obvious police misconduct.
In the name of "protecting an innocent child," the police terrorized an innocent child. That's "too much," landspirit, by any definition, legal, constitutional, or otherwise.
In their defense, the actions of the police in this case were a result of ineptitude, not malice; and they had indeed received a complaint upon which they had to act. As I said in my previous posts, I don't fault the police for investigating the situation. I fault them for how they went about it.
I'm not going to repeat my previous posts, but the gist is that I find it hard to believe that anyone -- especially a trained law enforcement officer -- could possibly mistake the typical run-ahead / look-back behavior of a 5-year-old skipping along with an adult as a possible abduction.
Even if they had their doubts, the fact that the child ran from the cops when approached, and hugged the old man's leg, should have ended the "investigation."
But even if they still had their doubts, they should have handled the next step in a non-confrontational way that didn't assume that the old man was a pervert and the innocent child his "victim." Because of this assumption, they -- the "protectors" -- abducted, interrogated, terrorized, and terrified a 5-year-old girl, as well as created the potential for greater tragedy had one of the cops felt it necessary to use lethal force to "protect" their victim.
Because one thing is undeniable: This little girl was victimized by the police.
You think that's far-fetched? Okay, let me appeal to your "protect the innocent children" hypothesis to explain why. I'm asking you to place yourself in the child's position, and to try to experience what she experienced because the police acted stupidly (and possibly illegally) in the way they "investigated" the case of a grandfather and granddaughter walking down the street together.
You are a 5-year-old girl. You were skipping along home with your beloved grandfather after a great day at the skating rink. You are very happy, and you're even more happy because you almost never get to walk outside at night with Grandpa. It's kind of exciting in a spooky kind of way, but Grandpa's there to protect you, so you're not afraid.
All of the sudden, a stranger in a brown uniform with a badge and a gun walks up to you and starts asking you if you know your Grandpa. What a stupid question! Of course you know him! He's your Grandpa! You tell her over and over, until finally you yell it at her, and she finally lets you go.
This makes you angry. Why did she have to ruin your walk home by asking you stupid questions, simply because you were walking with your Grandpa? It's because his skin is a different color, you know that. But who cares about that? He's your Grandpa, he loves you, you love him, and you're tired of people thinking there's something wrong with that!
Just as you're telling your Grandpa how angry this makes you, all the sudden you're surrounded by police cars with their scary lights flashing, and more scary strangers with badges and guns surround you and your Grandpa. They're shouting things at you, but you can't really understand what they're saying; and the lights are blinding you so you can't really see too well.
You run to Grandpa for protection and hold onto his leg, but the scary strangers with guns pull him away from you and handcuff him, and then they snatch you up and throw you in the back of a police car. You're screaming for Grandpa. You're afraid the scary people with badges and guns are going to shoot him! They hate that a black little girl has a white grandpa! Who knows what they'll do? They have guns!
They lock you in the back of the police car and keep asking you who the man is, and you keep telling them he's your Grandpa -- but they don't believe you. This makes you even more mad. You're not a liar! He's your Grandpa, and they're trying to make you say that he's a bad man!
But he's not a bad man. He's your Grandpa. The scary people with the badges and guns are the bad people, and now they have you trapped in their car.
What's going to happen to you? What's going to happen to Grandpa? Are they going to take him away from you? Are they going to shoot him?
You're so afraid.
Finally, they let you and grandpa go home. You're relieved, but very angry at the scary strangers with badges and guns. In fact, you hate them. They're supposed to be the people who protect you, not the people who kidnap little girls and handcuff their grandpas.
One thing's for sure: You're not going to trust those people with badges and guns any more.
- 5 votes
Very, very well said!
It annoys me to no end that so many people do not see what is as clear as day.,,,thank you for TRYING to clear it up so well - the child's perspective, as you laid it out, is exactly how I saw it and the moral of the story couldn't be more obvious - now this innocent 5-year-old will not be so innocent anymore, and will likely not trust the police for a very long time, if ever again.
All because some fat fck "wasn't sure" when it was her JOB to BE SURE! But, in the mind of some, apparently leaping first without looking is acceptable because MAYBE some danger is afoot.
- 3 votes
Although, it was over the top, those 9 police cars were there to protect a child, not harass a child and her grandfather. Even if she ran to him and exclaimed he was her grandpa, that still does not prove he is. The police had to verify all information and make sure this man was her grandpa and that she was safe. If they had not, and it turned out to be a kidnapping, everyone would be at their throats for not having made sure of the information. The grandfather made the police into the bad guys. He should have let his granddaughter know that all those police cars were there because they had thought her in danger and had come to rescue her. It was a mistake, but the police were there to protect her- not to harm her.
Geek...
but there is no too much when it comes to protecting an innocent child.
You would think much differently if you were a child who has gone through sexual abuse or an adult survivor. When it comes to the protection of a child, they have no one to protect them but adults. If those adults fail, then they are lost. If I were the grandfather, I would probably have thanked the police for their diligence and instead of portraying the police as the enemy to my granddaughter, I would have shown that they cared so much for her safety that 9 police cars came to her rescue.
You would think much differently if you were a child who has gone through sexual abuse or an adult survivor.
What makes you think that's not the case? Do you think that the fact that I disagree with you means that I lack empathy because I lack experience -- that any "real" parent, victim, survivor, or whatever would, of necessity, see things your way? That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?
...if you were a child who has gone through sexual abuse or an adult survivor
As a matter of fact, that is the case. But I'll keep the details to myself as it's no one's business on the Vine, it involves other people, and it's long in the past.
But you know what? It doesn't change my mind one bit. The cops were still wrong this time around. The proposition that it's somehow okay to abduct and terrorize a child to protect her from an unfounded possibility that a man who she seems quite trusting of just might be planning to molest her is still absurd.
If I were the grandfather, I would probably have thanked the police...
If I were the grandfather, I would have sued them.
...and instead of portraying the police as the enemy to my granddaughter, I would have shown that they cared so much for her safety that 9 police cars came to her rescue.
I might have done the same thing, for her benefit; but it would be a lie. The truth is that the politicians have so succeeded in brainwashing the whole country into being paranoid of pedophiles lurking behind every corner that every man is now a suspect -- even without a shred of probably cause.
Politicians do things like that because they need bogeymen: Keep the people afraid enough, and there's no limit to the bull@!$%# they'll tolerate in the name of "safety." But when it reaches the point that children are being forcibly abducted by the police and traumatized to "protect" them from their innocent grandparents, it's gone way too far; and that is very sad.
But it's not nearly as sad as when apparently rational people like yourself defend those actions, because it articulates a certain myopic view of a child's reality in which sexual predators are the only thing they have to fear; and no amount of injury to their essential rights -- not even being abducted and terrorized by armed strangers -- is ever excessive, if it is done in the name of protecting them from the bogeymen.
- 3 votes
without a shred of probably cause.
Should be "probable cause." I'm still on my first cup of coffee...
- 2 votes
Geek
The grandfather created an 'us' against 'them' picture out of what happened. I imagine the child will see police as the boogy men for some time in the future. The police were there to protect her. That should have been the message the grandfather had his granddaughter come away from the incident with.
And again, when it is a child's welfare at stake, it is better to error by over reacting then to error by not acting at all. I am not in a battle with you. That is the problem the grandfather had too: he created a battle where there was not one.
And again, when it is a child's welfare at stake, it is better to error by over reacting then to error by not acting at all.
But it's better to act appropriately than to do either. Can we agree on that?
- 2 votes
Actually as sad as it is it is just a normal reaction to the fact that most pedophiles are believed to be white.
- 14 votes
#4 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:02 AM ESTThat's a good point...
Along that vein, what are the statistics on interracial pedophilia? How often does a white pedophile target a child outside of his race? That would be an interesting statistic.
- 14 votes
Actually as sad as it is it is just a normal reaction to the fact that most pedophiles are believed to be white.
Sadly, it is a normal reaction of the Austin Pig Force to over react and violate rights.
. I am sure their report is full lies which is also normal. Austin needs Federal monitoring of their PIGS. This make my day behavior is getting to be all to common.
A cursory investigation was already performed by constable. He refused to answer further questions as was his right. And that is why the pigs gave the over reaction. Do a search for Austin police misconduct. There is plenty to find. They will lock you up and make false accusations if you try to video their misconduct.
- 5 votes
Racism is alive and well in Texass. :(
- 11 votes
#5 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:04 AM ESTAfter the cuffs were off, I said nothing to the APD cops as I carried the child away toward home. But I did pause when I passed the deputy constable - who still could barely look me in the eye - to say aloud to her, "You knew better. This is on you."
Texas normal, Will we ever be free from Racism?
- 7 votes
THe grandfather should be glad he wasn't in Williams County
- 4 votes
I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more upset when they found out he is the baby's grandfather.
Grits for Breakfast is s good blog, by the way:).
- 12 votes
#6 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:08 AM ESTOuch!
I have to say I laughed at one point though - this says it all:
It was a brown-suited deputy constable, apparently out of breath from the short walk.
I have had some recent (relatively pleasant) experiences with my local law enforcement, but sht like this is way too common;
Congrats APD (and the fat constable), you've put the fear of God into a 5-year-old minority child TWICE now....expect them to NEVER trust you again. So much for "post-racial America" in 2012.
Fckin pigs!
- 11 votes
#8 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:45 AM ESTJust one more sad example of how the world has become.
This is a story about one man, and one child being confronted by government employees who have forgotten their way.
Things like this happen every day. People live in neighborhoods where they can't walk to the corner store, or get together with a few friends without being hassled, talked down to, frisked, etc. by the police.
It is no wonder they do not trust us. (I am a police officer)
We live in a society driven by anger, paranoia, and fear.
A society that has lost most of its basic freedoms, because people in government want to regulate everything we do, everything we think, and everything we say. The people feel like caged animals with no way out, and they are angry.
Angry at a system that only listens to the rich and powerful, who are systematically taking everything from people who already have practically nothing. The people are vermin to those in power.
We live in a world that is on the brink of destruction.
A world where a man can't even walk down the street, in public, with his granddaughter without being harassed, traumatized, and treated like a criminal.
We must change!
Decades of hatred and mistrust must be replaced with dialogue, understanding, and compromise.
Insane and unjust laws must be repealed. The police, as well as the people must stand up and let our voices be heard.
Our sworn duty is to serve the public, not to enslave them. To honor the Constitution, not trample on it with our highly polished boots.
We have become militarized, and led to believe that anyone who does not say "yes sir" and march in lockstep with the government is a criminal. When the real criminals are smiling at us on the TV, promising us everything we want to hear, and trying to sucker us
into casting a vote for them. Then pass laws that further restrict the freedom and dignity of the people.
It is not just in America. This same thing is happening all over the world.
- 19 votes
Excellent comment, Kyle. All the more poignant b/c you are an officer of the law. Thank you for weighing in.
- 8 votes
Thanks bonos!
I have clipped this seed to several groups, including a politics group.
Some may think that this is not a political issue, but I think that the root cause for most of our problems lies there.
- 12 votes
Kyle, I definitely disagree with you on some points. Since when is cops doing their jobs considered 'gov't control'? Geesh! You mention gramps being harassed/hassled while 'walking' down the street.
Am I the only one that read where Ky was 'running' ahead and Gramps who was yelling safety precautions. Maybe even, he was quickening his pace to ensure he was close enough to keep her out of harms way.
Also folks, it was almost 8 p.m. and it's wintertime, meaning it was DARK outside. Did moonlight, streetlights, porch lights or vehicle headlights throw enough light to even be able to tell Ty (again who was running) was not (all) white like gramps. I know in my neighborhood, I'd be hard pressed to tell what color any child (or adult for that matter) is unless they were directly under a streetlamp or directly in the beams of headlights. And even then it may not be so clear unless you were fairly close to person.
- 1 vote
How many times have you been stopped and hassled when your own child was running ahead of you? I guarantee "never". I don't know a parent that hasn't had a child running ahead of them on a sidewalk. And yet this is the only story I've heard so far of nine cop cars responding to just such a situation. In fact, they had been roller skating at a youth center. Three were likely many children and parents in attendance, and none of those parents were stopped afterwards and questioned about their relationship. i doubt that this was the only 5 year old to be running ahead of their parent. Kids are kids.
Something is different in this case. One guess as to what that is.
- 12 votes
Kyle, I definitely disagree with you on some points. Since when is cops doing their jobs considered 'gov't control'?
Every law that has ever been passed is some level of government control. How we choose to "do our jobs" can be more important than any law ever written.
A polite conversation, expressing the concerns of the person who initially called it in, and asking for a moment to clear things up would have sufficed.
9 police cars, handcuffs, and scaring the crap out of a 5 year old child was an ignorant, and dangerous way to handle the situation.
There are many ways to "DO" a job.
Most of our "JOB" is interacting with the public. In order to do that, you first have to learn how to communicate with the public, without lording over them, talking down to them, belittling them, etc. Arrogance kills.
To quote an old movie line: "What we have here, is failure to communicate."
If two people are yelling and screaming at each other, are either of them actually listening to what is being said?
No.
All they feel is anger and rage, amplified by the other person's anger and rage. It can quickly become dangerous. If you step in between them yelling and screaming yourself, you have just made the situation worse.
If you come into the situation calm, and reasonable, and speaking to both parties as equals, only raising your voice if you absolutely have to, then you have a chance of diffusing the situation without the need for violence, arrests, and more hard feelings.
I present a law enforcement presence without being authoritarian, and most of the time it works. As people get to know me, they realize that I'm not out to bust their ass unless I have to. I am honest with them. I treat them with respect. I have resolved many disputes without the need for criminal charges, an arrest, or dragging people through the INjustice system. Others see what I have done, and their perspective changes. Instead of suspicious looks, I'll get a cautious nod and a smile. Over the years, some of those nods and smiles have evolved into jokes and laughter. Several young people who were on a path to nowhere received college degrees and moved on to bigger and better things. Small victories, and each one was achieved without violence.
As a PEACE OFFICER, my JOB is to preserve the peace. Peace is the absence of war. Too many of us have forgotten that.
- 14 votes
Thank-You for your perspective as a Police officer. Wish we had more of you. The poor little girl probably will not trust the police for a very long time if ever. We need to stand up and stop the hate.
- 6 votes
***Apologies to bonos_rama for taking up so much real estate on your seed.***
We need to stand up and stop the hate.
That is the exact message that I am trying to convey, to anyone willing to listen.
The poor little girl probably will not trust the police for a very long time if ever.
Indeed. These officers did more harm than they care to realize.
Wish we had more of you.
IMO, we have far too many police officers 'asserting their authority' everywhere, because they can, and too few that still try to do the right things for the right reasons.
Many police officers are in conflict with themselves. Sometimes, our very job description is an oxymoron (contradiction in terms).
We are all sworn to uphold the Constitution, protect and serve our citizens, and our communities, with honor, loyalty and integrity.
Yet, we are taught to be brutal, violent, uncaring cogs in a machine that would see everyone who disagrees with government locked away, or discredited as a lunatic because you are a threat to them, and their lust for power. (indeed you are)
I used to be a good li'l soldier. Back when I was too young, stupid, and filled with hateful propaganda to know better. Then I grew up and realized that, some laws are just and necessary. BUT...
Our politicians keep passing laws that, by their very nature, are unjust, unconstitutional, and only seem to serve the interests of the rich, and I am expected to lock some poor schmuck away for violating a law that I think is completely absurd. (Ex. Freedom of speech vs. 'unlawful assembly')
No. I will not.
But, I will speak out and try to get the people to realize that laws can be changed. Wrongs can be righted. Hatred can be replaced with love. Although it will take time.
We are imperfect people, living in an imperfect world, governed by other imperfect people who place greed, and a lust for wealth and power, over the very people they are sworn to serve.
This has brought us generations of people who are sick and tired of being treated like vermin. They feel oppressed, used, abused, and unwanted. Their cries go unheard, and they are lashing out and crying WE WILL NOT BE IGNORED. But the voices have usually fallen on deaf ears.
So, the governments crack down on the people and try to silence them. (Historically, many of those governments have fallen... Some recently)
The people, governments, and religious institutions of the world must set aside their hatred, and fear of things that are different. We much achieve a balance. We must stop for a moment and ask "What the heck are we doing?". We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. It is time for the ruling class to take a step back step and let the people decide what we want. Stop trying to dictate how we live our lives and simply let us live our lives. We have been your slaves for thousands of years. Please leave us alone.
When you remove the hate, it opens the door to feel love.
And through love, peace can be achieved.
Then, we can rebuild a world where no government can act without the consent of the people. A world where no one need live in fear, where no child need go to bed hungry, where no one is persecuted for their (peaceful) personal, or religious beliefs. A world where we can resolve our differences peacefully. A world that we can be proud to pass on to our children.
We can give peace a try, or we can continue to obliterate each other, until there is no one left to fight. What shall it be?
Think about it.
- 10 votes
***Apologies to bonos_rama for taking up so much real estate on your seed.***
Please, no need. That's what these seeds are for. Hell, if anything, I'm the one that usually needs to step back and take a break from commenting. I appreciate yours.
- 5 votes
thank you for your service Kyle! Thank you for using your critical thinking skills--too many cops don't do that. If you are not already a member, LEAP would be something to investigate (LawEnforcementAgainstProhibition)--from your comments, you would fit right in and have others of like mind to relate to.
- 3 votes
kyle, thanks for your service to the community where you live. I agree with a great deal of your post, but there are a couple of questions I have for you.
You say
I used to be a good li'l soldier. Back when I was too young, stupid, and filled with hateful propaganda to know better. Then I grew up and realized that, some laws are just and necessary. BUT...
Our politicians keep passing laws that, by their very nature, are unjust, unconstitutional, and only seem to serve the interests of the rich, and I am expected to lock some poor schmuck away for violating a law that I think is completely absurd. (Ex. Freedom of speech vs. 'unlawful assembly')
No. I will not.
If indeed we are imperfect people in an imperfect world, what justification do you have for deciding which laws you will and won't enforce? Why is you perception any more unfallible than the people who wrote the law?
You used the "unlawful assembly" as an example. Would you be more or less likely to arrest based not on whether or not you agree with what they are saying? You cannot pick and choose based on your ideas of what is a good and bad law. It would create havoc in our cities, if one officer arrests you for something, and another doesn't. Do you and your fellow officers agree on everything? I would guess NO.
If you are not already a member, LEAP would be something to investigate (LawEnforcementAgainstProhibition)
I am very familiar with organizations like L.E.A.P. or N.O.R.M.L. and many others, and although I am not an "official - card carrying member" of either of these groups, I have done a great deal of work in trying to end prohibition, and educate people on both sides of the issue. You may have seen some of my work in the past and never known. I'll leave it there.
If indeed we are imperfect people in an imperfect world, what justification do you have for deciding which laws you will and won't enforce? Why is you perception any more unfallible than the people who wrote the law?
Much of the time it is not deciding WHAT laws to enforce, but HOW best to enforce them. Some laws specify that an officer SHALL ARREST, and I have no choice. But, I can document and testify to certain aspects that may either benefit the prosecution, or the defense, based upon the facts of the case, and my own knowledge and experience.
[**Example: I see a grown man strike a teenager in the back of the head and yell at him. That is assault, right? Arrest his ass and throw him in jail, right? Case closed, right? Not exactly.
Upon investigation, (actually speaking to and listening) I find that he is the father of a 16 year old punk (and I'm being nice by saying punk) that is out skipping school, hanging out with the wrong people, and constantly getting into trouble. I see a father who is in tears, at his wits end, trying the best he can to get through to a thick headed, foul mouthed, little @!$%# who won't listen.
Oh, and when he smacked the teenage punk in the back of the head, (it was more like a glancing, fingertip swat) he yelled "Stop throwing your life away!"
I was ordered by a supervisor, (Lieutenant) to arrest the dad for family violence, (One of those SHALL ARREST offenses.) and let the court sort it out.
In court, I testified to exactly what I saw, heard, and felt. I went on to say that as a father, facing similar circumstances, I would have done the same thing. The jury agreed and the man was set free. **] I merely spoke the truth.
Some laws state that an officer MAY ARREST, and I have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcement. That is where a lot of "breaks", or verbal warnings, or a ticket when you could have went to jail come into play.
Instead of treating people like crap, I try to treat them like equals. It is not always easy, but once you get past the initial obstacles and start getting through to the person inside, it gets better. It just takes time.
I'm no clueless politician, who sits in a fancy office and surrounds himself (or herself) with a bunch of rich, fake friends, and writes legislation that any team of half witted lawyers could pick apart in 10 minutes. I am out there, seeing what is going on every day. I see the anger on people's faces and the fear in their eyes, and I can feel their hatred of a system that is corrupt and broken. I see people who are not used to speaking to a police officer unless the conversation began with "Motherf*cker, let me see your hands!!!" or some other demeaning command as they are hassled, frisked and lectured for walking down a public sidewalk on a Saturday afternoon. Their only "offense", being Black. I'm sick of it. But, I'm working in my own way, to change that.
You used the "unlawful assembly" as an example. Would you be more or less likely to arrest based not on whether or not you agree with what they are saying?
That is just one of many examples. But, in light of recent events involving police brutality against people who only want to exercise their RIGHT to peacefully assemble in protest, so that their voices can be hard, I thought it to be a good example. I do not have to agree with everything they are saying, but I AM sworn to defend your right to say it. Also, partially based upon my constitutional arguments, and pointing out the power of YouTube, our department instituted a policy that prohibits us from infringing upon the right to peacefully assemble in protest, or peacefully exercising any constitutional right, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. That is a victory in my book.
You cannot pick and choose based on your ideas of what is a good and bad law.
Actually, I can. It goes back to HOW we choose to enforce a law.
Do you and your fellow officers agree on everything? I would guess NO.
Of course we (collectively) do not agree on everything. But many who used to believe that every offender should go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, are now asking why are we doing this? Many are seeing the light. Many are saying "This is not what I signed on for." Things are changing.
When laws become unjust, and the system that creates those laws is so corrupt, and broken that nothing makes sense anymore, it is time to speak out against it.
- 5 votes
Thanks for the reply. I hope I wasn't coming of as accusutive or angry, just wondered your rational for what you said. Your response clearly shows that you care about your job and the people you serve. I hope that there are more officers out there who show this level respect for the job they have. Good luck and be safe.
- 1 vote
No problem wannachub.
I did not take it as accusatory. You simply asked a question, and I tried to answer it as best as I could, without writing a novel. LOL
I hope that it helped to better clarify my position.
Be well!
I read all the comment and I sincerely feel that the safety of the child is paramount. I do not give a rat' ass feelings towards the right of the grandfather whose main concern is merely about his right to walk his granddaughter free from interference of all kinds. If it was me, I would appreciate greatly that the fact that had I not been there and somebody else took advantage of my absence to harm my relations, I know that cops will take their time to make sure that the safety of my granddaughter is not being taken lightly.
I fully agree with wannachub on this issue.
My beautiful grandson is black/white, but we have never been treated like this.That poor child was probably scared stiff.
- 10 votes
#10 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:33 AM ESTA good idea might be to keep a walletfull of photos of pictures of you together with the child - pictures going back from babyhood and onward, to show an existing relationship, in case you are stopped and questioned. Sad that we have to think that way, but better safe than sorry.
- 8 votes
I couldn't agree with you more on 10.1 bonos. Sad indeed. But going back to babyhood? I think a couple of wallet sized ones with family members might to do the trick.
I grinned thinking of gramps saying 'hold on, hold on - I've got proof right here' as he struggles out of his large backpack, lays it on the ground and starts pulling out photo ALBUMS. 'See here's me right here next to her bassinet in the hospital nursery.........and here we are at her 1st b'day party.....and both of us snoozing in my favorite rocker' and etc. lol lol lol
- 6 votes
Who said it has to be an album? A wallet can hold a half dozen or so photos. A photo of the child as a baby, and then every year or so should do the trick, and prove to a cop that photos weren't just taken that day by someone "kidnapping".
And when someone is in detention for several hours, surely they have a little time to open up a wallet? You make it seem like it's an imposition to show photos, yet the detention itself isn't an imposition. LOL
It might be sad that it has to come to that, but when there are nuts running around putting in false claims of kidnapping based on nothing more than a child trotting in front of their grandparent, that's how it needs to be.
- 4 votes
I agree with bonos_rama on carrying some pictures in their wallet. It would go a long way from defusing any racial tensions or misconceptions as to the intent.
- 1 vote
The majority of posters on original article are ranting about hiring lawyers, suing cops and making complaints. I side with the minority. Instead of making this about a white grandpa with his mixed granddaughter, (as granpa himself did) try viewing it through the eyes of the 'good samaritan' who called this in. They (obviously) had no idea they were related or that Ty was having fun. Gramps himself said she was running ahead and he was yelling safety precautions to her. Maybe what the caller saw was a kid who they (mistakenly) thought was running from/trying to escape harm.
I think the only reason the caller would have mentioned color (if they in fact did) would be so cops could identify who they were looking for. I don't think Grandpa has gotten past his anger enough to view it from outside looking in.
I don't give a rat's patoot what color anyone is. When there's a report of possible nefarious activites, especially involving a child, the cops should burn rubber/haul azz - just like they did!! Now like it or not, we do not have a color blind society and maybe Austin isn't 'Diversity Central', and maybe interracial families aren't as prevalent there as in some bigger cities (I don't know - just speculating here). But our society is what it is and the color difference no doubt did raise some eyebrows once they all arrived.
I think any of us would have been angry had we been in the same situation of having to wait for an unnecessary amount of time to have your story verified, no less, while being cuffed.
Were the cops in the wrong. H*LL NO!! They did their job and erred (?) on the side of caution and I for one am glad they did. The ONLY negative I see in this entire story is maybe the cops could have verified identies quicker than they did. Also, someone should let grandpa know that this isn't that rare. I've read other stories similar to this.
- 2 votes
#11 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:41 AM ESTWere the cops in the wrong.
HELL YES THEY WERE WRONG!!!! See post #1.8 on WHY they were wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is always preferable to being doing nothing, being wrong and there being dire consequences, but that's not what happened here. If his ID was verified BY THE CONSTABLE, that should have ended it there....if the Constable had reservations, dare I say a REASONABLE SUSPICION to either question the legitimacy of the man's ID and relationship to the daughter, or that there was foul play and danger afoot, SHE had every right to detain him until the situation was properly assessed and the threat eliminated. That she let him go indicates that no threat was perceived.....if she had second thoughts, then again, as the man said, "This is on you!" In no situation was it proper to have that many uniforms present, and in no situation was is proper for the Constable to let him go, THEN call for backup.
There was no reason to cuff the man, no reason to detain him further, no reason to question him beyond the initial encounter, instead, it escalated to the point where they put the child in the back of the car for "safety".....no, you have a scared child witnessing her "grandpa" harassed by police for the second time in her short life.....and you wonder why people don't trust the cops.
Sorry, the Constable was wrong and it just snowballed from there.
- 8 votes
try viewing it through the eyes of the 'good samaritan' who called this in. They (obviously) had no idea they were related or that Ty was having fun. Gramps himself said she was running ahead and he was yelling safety precautions to her. Maybe what the caller saw was a kid who they (mistakenly) thought was running from/trying to escape harm.
Possibly, but how many parents or grandparents that share the same race as their children are stopped like this on any given day? On any given day, there are any number of kids running in front of their parents, who are yelling after them and we don't hear of constant and consistent calls to the police to check out possible kidnappings.
- 8 votes
Hind-sight is great, but thinking this over why didn't the female cop ask the child who he was? I think a 5 year old child can talk..
It might of had a different ending.
- 3 votes
She did, Royal Lancer. She asked the child at least three times, b/c the child spoke softly. The last time, the child very loudly and clearly said "He's my grandpa" and hugged his leg. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. It was only the beginning.
- 11 votes
Wow what a bunch of waco cops. the constable confirmed that this guy was her grandparent and if she wasnt satisfied she could have easily kept them both there to begin with to be sure. Afterwords 9 cars showing up handcuffs throwing the kid in the cop car is wrong.
Ive personally been through a similar accusation. One cop, he asked a few questions to me and a few more directed at my kids, he let me go no further problems.
- 7 votes
#12 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:51 PM ESTValid and reasonable response (and at 9.5) I am well aware there could have been a racial factor here but I guess my initial thought pattern after reading article is just different from everyone elses.
You ask how often this happens with same race families. I ask how often it happens with mixed families! Or any type families for that matter.
I think someone mentioned multiple calls in one of these posts. I only remember reading of 'a' call - which means 'a' person was concerned with what they perceived to be going on. The cops were obligated to check it out.
I try to be a good citizen and have no qualms about calling cops and have done so when warranted. I read this story in the same vein.
#13 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:57 PM ESTWell, given the fact that this guy had it happen to him twice, and here is another story (although with the races reversed), I'd say it obviously does happen.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/22/raising-katie.html
My kids often ran in front of me while walking. Never once did I have the cops called. Nor did my husband. I don't know of any parent, aside from these people and their stories, that had that happen, despite the fact that running is what kids do, constantly. (It's so common someone invented a "kid harness" to curtail some of it). You seem to suggest that just the mere fact of a child running means they are being abducted. How many times have you been a "good citizen" and called the police when you've seen a kid running?
- 7 votes
While it seems to have been
1. solidly a misunderstanding
2. and apparently at least one cop was sad/ashamed such an interaction had to be made (she couldn't look him in the eye),
3. and yes, maybe it could have been handled better,
4. and yes, there was NO need for 9 cars of cops (apparently there is not much to do in this town)
5. and yes...
The cops were responding to some (racist?) (had a child kidnapped/knew someone who did?) person who called in a concern. It had to be investigated. Could it have been done better?? Of course it could. Should the cops have ignored it? NO! The short story - "child running away from an older person in pursuit" (not claiming to know all the details of the report), is justifiable cause to investigate. NOT the way it was done, but it is nice to know that a large number of police came to protect the life and safety of a child in a situation where the "informant" felt there could have been a danger to the child.
It would be a nice touch if the police put an article in the paper stipulating the facts of the stop, explaining that the gentleman was not doing harm, is the grandfather, and that it was a misunderstanding for which they apologize, but only wanted to ensure the safety of the child - regardless of the race make up of the two being "investigated". This presuming an honest, no racism intended, save the children intent, and an honest desire that anyone seeing the "altercation" learn that the gentleman and his daughter had, in fact, done nothing wrong.
- 6 votes
#14 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:30 PM ESTThis is "six of one and a half dozen of another." The police recieved calls about the man and his grandaughter so they wern't the only ones who found the situation suspicious. Unfortunately, children are abducted every day in America. They had every right to investigate. The problem was, they did it badly. Multiracial families are becoming more commonplace in the US. But they aren't exactly the norm. Yet. It was terrible the way the gentleman was treated and that his granddaughter was frightened by the experience. But the APD erred on the side of caution. Hypothetically, what if the man had been a child abductor and the police arrived on the scene? What if they had released him and the child by mistake? Can you imagine the rage and righteous indignation the community would have against the Austin PD? To be sure, this was handled wrong. But as someone who has been in law enforcement for twenty six years, I would have also detained the gentleman and his granddaughter until I could verify the situation. The alternative if the police made a mistake is unthinkable.
#15 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:01 PM ESTI would have also detained the gentleman and his granddaughter until I could verify the situation.
And it that was what happened, you'd have a point. He WAS detained (by the Constable) and then let go when it was determined (or should have been determined) that there was no threat, crime or probable cause to further detain him......anything that happened afterwards was overkill and arguably a violation of his rights.
Yes, the "alternative" of a mistake IS unthinkable, but never forget that we hold our law enforcement officers to a higher standard and duty of care for a reason.
- 7 votes
blindsided, what made HIS situation so different from all of the other parents out there walking on the street with their own children and grandchildren? Why was it suspicious? That's what I'm getting at. If walking down the street with a kid skipping or trotting in front of you is suspicious, why isn't nearly every parent stopped nearly every day? Do you call the cops every time you see a parent walking with their kid, if the kid is trotting a few steps ahead? If not, why not?
- 5 votes
"but never forget that we hold our law enforcement officers to a higher standard and duty of care for a reason." Webslinger, first and foremost, Police Officers are human beings. They're not perfect or infallible. I know I'm not. Secondly, although mistakes were made in this situation, I sensed no intent of maliciousness or abuse on the part of these officers. It's very easy to "armchair quarterback" the job Police Officers do everyday. But if you've never done the job, you don't understand the dynamics of the profession. Police officers are required to make "split second" "life or death" decisions throughout their career. The majority of the time, we get it right. But sometimes like any other human being, we make a mistake. I would rather an officer to err on the side of caution than to make a bad call that could cause him/her or someone else great bodily harm or their life. If it was easy, anybody could do it. And not just anyone can do this job. It has been my experience that the majority of people who criticize the police in situations like this have neither the aptitude nor the temperament for this profession. To be fair, there are some people in this profession who should not be. I've had the misfortune of working with a few. But the majority of Police Officers in this country are dedicated professionals who do an extraordinary job of serving the people they are sworn to protect. Are we perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. but every Police Officer is always conscious of the ramifications of a mistake that could cost them or someone else their life. There are very few professions that carry that type of responsibility. And even fewer people who can handle it.
Agreed. I feel that the whole issue came about because some person (needlessly) worried about a black/white:white/black (non) "issue". I presume (we all know what that means) that both grandfather/daughter were smiling ,laughing, having fun, and as such should not (to the non mrs. Kravitz [I Dream of Genie] set) have been an issue. Unfortunately, some clown "saw" a "problem", called in a "problem". The cops had to respond. Over kill by the cops maybe, but they were duty bound to respond.
Bonos, I do not see you as blaming the cops for responding, but questioning the person who called in the complaint - as I do, and I am sure most of the world does.
- 1 vote
@bonos_rama, YOU know what made his situation different. Race is still the "elephant in the room" that everyone wants to ignore and nobody wants to talk about. At first glance, I could see how the man and his granddaughter could attract attention. As I said before, multiracial families are not exactly the norm. But I think that will change in this century. The police didn't just arbitrarily pull up and detain the gentleman. They were CALLED to the scene. Maybe you should ask the people in that Austin neighborhood what they found so different "from all the other parents walking on the street with their own children and grandchildren."
- 1 vote
blindsided,
With all due respect, I am NOT criticizing the profession. I know and have known quite a few officers in my time, and I have had the privilege (and displeasure at times) of working with several - I worked as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, but while you all ARE human, you ARE held to a higher standard. If I may throw a superhero reference out there, "with great power comes great responsibility" - it does not just apply to Spider-Man.....with the power to arrest, shoot, detain, etc comes the responsibility to assure that mistakes are RARE (if ever occurring). That is why we have the standards of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond a reasonable doubt. It is why we have protocols and training and supervising officers and Internal Affairs as well as Miranda cards and dash cams.
- 3 votes
Webslinger, with all due respect to you, as a prosecutor and defense attorney, You should know better than anyone the intricacies of the situation. I have also had the "privilege (and displeasure at times)" of working with attorneys on both sides of the courtroom. The judicial system is not perfect either. Mistakes are made. Sometimes guilty people go free, and innocent people go to prison. We as the police can catch criminals all day every day, but if there's not a good assistant DA handling the case, "we're just spinning our wheels." My point is, nobody is perfect. These officers made some mistakes, but there was no evidence of maliciousness or abuse regarding the situation. As an attorney based on the article, name ONE criminal act these officers committed. IMO, they upheld the standard. Could they have handled the situation in a different way? Yes. But other than being less than diplomatic, they did nothing wrong.
Did I allege a criminal act or malice? NO. I simply stated that we hold our officers to a higher standard of care (as we do our doctors AND our lawyers). That nobody is perfect is not justification for holding professionals to high standards.
- 3 votes
"That nobody is perfect is not justification for holding professionals to high standards." I never implied it was. If you think that, you've misunderstood my posts. What i'm saying is, the officers In Austin did not violate those standards. If they did, I would be the first person calling for their termination and prosecution (if applicable.) I've done my best to live up to those standards my ENTIRE career as I'm sure you have. Unfortunately incidents of police misconduct do occur. The situation in Austin was not one of them.
Jack from Texas. Is right.
These police departments are driven by mandatory response. Saying that, the police respond with a preset policy that pertains to the paper work they have to fill out....that is how they receive federal money that is earmarked to funding specific police mandatory response procedures in cities graeter then 30,000 people.
This is how the government determines the value of the policy,,,, or politics you pick ...kinda corperate huh?
Communities lose confidence in the police due to police mandatory response. The police really have no contact with the public..so they don't know you they suspect you..... When more then three cops are present at a scene of a dispute the smart thing to do is leave. Catch it on the news.. Police in force naturally become very authoritarian. And some body is going to jail...guilty or not....
In Boston in 2005 a armed jewel robbery used the local police response to a 911 call as a distraction...I'm sure this is a reason for the rise of private security firms.. All Boston did was hire more cops ...lol. Then they lay them off.....bad policy all the way around. Sic.
- 1 vote
#16 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:19 PM ESTThis is a case for the courts. False imprisonment is not to be taken lightly. Plus, it would be interesting to know if there really was a call to the police as claimed. Pre-trial discovery would hopefully reveal if there really was a call, and who made it. Making a false police report is also a crime, and there was no reasonable basis to make such a report, and I would make a case for liability on the person making such a report as well. What are the police going to do, claim it was solely the race of the person or persons that they suspected?
The chilling effect this kind of incident has is not funny. Friends of different races getting together at a public park could be dangerous in Texas. What if there was a game of tag? I suppose they would have to send entire squadron of cops for that and call in for help from PD's of neighboring towns! If matters like this are not addressed in the courts, the cops will continue to victimize people just because the cops don't like people fraternizing with other races. Make them pay! Terrorizing a little girl should not be tolerated, especially when the people doing it are supposed to represent the law. Sounds like a 1983 action, too. Depriving someone of civil rights under color of law. (In this case, the color was brown, the color of the police uniforms.)
- 2 votes
#17 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:01 PM ESTI'll admit that a white man walking around with a black child is out of the ordinary. Now it shouldn't turn any heads.
- 1 vote
#18 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:01 PM ESTI suppose I can relate to this story personally only because I'm bi-racial myself. But I was in a completely different scenario as a child than this one. I looked white, I had blonde hair and my black, dark skinned grandmother would take me out shopping with her on the weekends or banking and the nice bank clerks would give me lollipops and they all assumed my grandmother was my nanny. No one thought for the world I could possibly be her grandson in the 60s. For that we were left alone. My complexion hasn't changed much as I've aged, but now I look more Hispanic than anything. The thing is had I been a darker skinned black child in the 60s I wonder if any cop cars would have pulled up at all had a white man been holding my hand. I'm sorry this child has to be subjected to these kinds of eye opening experiences at such a young age but this is how our world turns, unfortunately. I do know of one instance when I lived in Charlotte, NC for four years from 8-12 and when I was 10 a man in a convertible pulled up right in front of my house and asked me if I wanted to go for a ride with him. I am thankful that I was taught never to go anywhere with strangers for I told him no and that my mother said I couldn't go with strangers. Had I gotten in that car I believe to this day I wouldn't be alive right now. I know this is off subject but I just had to get that out.
- 3 votes
#19 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:14 PM ESTYou just cannot make this stuff up. How pitiful that our law enforcement has to chase down people to make sure that a child is not being abducted. Has crime gotten so bad in our neighborhoods that law enforcement officials have to be this aggressive? The call must have been made for a good reason. How sad. This was in Austin? Hell it could have been Detroit, Memphis, Chicago, Atlanta or any inner city. Just very sad.
- 3 votes
#22 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:08 PM ESTWhile I might of understood the first contact but after that? An over reaction and poorly handled.They made it worse and obviously scared a child. When she grabbed her grandpa's leg all aggressive behaviour should of stopped. Did it take that many police? I am sure someone who had arrived first would of let the rest know that it appeared to ok? Grabbing her and putting her in the police car even after she said my grandpa? They should be shamed of themselves.
- 3 votes
#24 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:47 PM ESTGuess it never occurred to the critics of this incident -- that the police simply were concerned the grandfather might have evil intentions in mind. Of course, were the converse true -- that the grandfather was not a relative but instead a sexual predator and had kidnapped the child -- our selfsame detractors would be unanimous in their condemnation of the "incompetent" police.
- 1 vote
Of course it occurred. We just want an explanation for WHY he was assumed to have evil intentions in mind. No good explanation has been forthcoming yet...
In the old Soviet Union I can understand people being stopped and questioned for doing nothing, but not here.
- 3 votes
Would you rather take the risk the grandfather was indeed a sexual predator? Or are you simply trying to create a race crime out of a non-issue?
- 1 vote
He wasn't doing anything suspicious, Americanpatriot12. Why do you think Americans who aren't doing anything wrong should be detained and questioned like soviet union citizens? But let's run with it and assume you do feel that way. How many times have you called the police when you see a man walking down the street with a child? If you haven't called, why not? Aren't you taking a risk that a man walking down the street with a kid is a sexual predator? Shouldn't you be calling them ALL in, to be sure?
- 3 votes
I repeat, WHAT IF he had been a predator? You and others would be screaming your heads off about the "incompetent" police. You're simply trading on the fact the kid was Black and the Grandfather was White -- which triggered suspicion on the part of police. Seems to me you're simply trolling, trying to turn this incident into a racist act by the police. Kind of like those many noose incidents and scrawled racial slurs incidents -- that on careful investigation -- discovered to have been done by the Black complainants. Yes, there were several such incidents in recent years where I live.
as others have stated and I agree with,
when the kid grabbed his leg and said he was her grandpa, that should have been the end of it
- 5 votes
which triggered suspicion on the part of police
You called it. Otherwise, what exactly was he doing wrong by walking down the street with his grandchild, Americanpatriot? In which town do you know that walking with a child is a crime in and of itself? If you feel so strongly that it is cause for suspicion, how often do you call such a crime in yourself? Every guy you see on the street with a child should be suspected of being a predator in your philosophy, it seems. You should be calling the cops all day; if you aren't, then by your own reasoning, you must not really care about the kids.
the fact that this has happened to him in the past shows there's SOME reason he's being stopped. Race is the likely culprit whether you like it or not.
- 4 votes
discovered to have been done by the Black complainants. Yes, there were several such incidents in recent years where I live.
Yes, there have been. There have also been far more that have been done by white people. Hell, there were anti-semitic writings throughout Brooklyn a last month, and the perp turned out to BE Jewish. Does that negate the very real anti-semitism that happens on a regular basis? Of course not. So what was your point?
- 4 votes
Kazutam, don't race troll on my seeds. Your race trolling WILL be deleted AND reported to Tyler and Sally.
- 5 votes
Ahhhhhhhhhhh,
Here we go again.
It's funny I don't see any comments(threats) from you towards the OTHER posters who have brought up the point that I made about pedophiles(#4), as a matter of fact your comment in #4.1 pretty much agrees with what was said and asks for statistics on the inter-racial aspect.
There are NO comments(threats) from you asking folks to tone it down when they are slamming an entire state's worth of people for the actions taken by some cops.
There are NO comments(threats) from you towards others who are making this into a racial discussion.
Look dude, if you don't want me to comment on your seeds, simply say so and be done with it. To be honest I DO understand that you can't handle anyone disagreeing with YOUR stand on issues.
Your empty threats have grown old.
Your comment was nothing but grenade trolling. That's not going to fly on my seed. Such racist comments will be deleted and you will be reported for the grenade trolling. Simple as that. Nobody else on here is calling all whites pedophiles except YOU. Take responsibility for your OWN prejudices. That's inflammatory and reportable.
- 5 votes
Nobody else on here is calling all whites pedophiles except YOU.
See there in is your error.
I did NOT call all whites pedophiles, I called all pedophiles white.
As did fed up in comment # 4.
What I actually stated was that according to "conventional wisdom" of folks here on the vine that was the case.
As far as the victim statement well like I stated above, YOU asked for stats on the inter-racial aspect of that in #4.1.
You can claim it's "grenade trolling" all you wish, but we both know that's not the case.
Nothing that I stated in my first posting is ANY different than anything else others have already posted on this seed WITH your approval of their comments, or at least without their comments being deleted.
It may have been put out there a bit blunter, but there was NO difference in what I posted and what you have already let stand.
Continue to suggest that all pedophiles are white, or that all whites pedophiles, or that this "should happen to all whites" and you will continue to be deleted and reported. Your choice.
You have a history of making such racist comments and I won't let them stand without reporting.
- 3 votes
OK, so........................
Others, who SUPPORT what you like supported, are able to say anything they wish and make statements like:
just a normal reaction to the fact that most pedophiles are believed to be white.
(Directly block quoted from posting #4)
And you will say NOTHING to them.
Let me state the SAME thing and I will be deleted.
Got it................................
- 1 vote
Any suggestion that "all whites deserve this to happen to them" or that ALL pedophiles are white or that ALL whites all pedophiles, will be reported and deleted.
- 3 votes
Your post included this inflammatory and racist statement, among other things.
After all it's about time that this begins happening to "whites" isn't it?
So don't try to mischaracterize why it was deleted.
- 4 votes
Would you rather take the risk the grandfather was indeed a sexual predator? Or are you simply trying to create a race crime out of a non-issue?
This is part of the problem with the hysteria that the politicians have built around their latest pariahs of choice -- sex offenders. They've taken a very real issue, but have blown it so far out of proportion with reality -- purely for political reasons -- that law enforcement officers are now free to stop and question any adult who is anywhere near a child. Every adult, especially every man, is now a suspect.
When the law enforcement officers in question happen to belong to that very small percentage of cops who lack common sense, innocent people -- including children -- are traumatized, and there is the potential for even worse tragedy.
As I stated earlier, I understand that the police have a difficult job, and I understand that they had to do something when the complaint was called in. They would be negligent if they did nothing. I also know, based on my own experiences with police officers (as well as a stint working alongside them doing drug interdiction and maritime law enforcement when I was in the service), that the vast majority of cops are very sharp individuals. They are firmly rooted in reality, and they have extraordinary instincts and observational skills.
The question as I interpret it, therefore, is not one of whether the police should have acted, but rather how good police officers with common sense should have acted.
Let me share a relevant bit of my own personal life. My ex had two young relatives who were biracial. They were the younger half-sisters of her granddaughters. When the ex and I took her granddaughters to places like Chucky Cheese, amusement parks, pools, beaches, museums, or what-have-you, we often took the little half-sisters along as well. It just seemed kinda cruel not to. Besides, they were very well-behaved little girls, so they were a pleasure to have along.
Because the age difference affected things like which rides at an amusement park were appropriate for the girls, we often split them up, with each of us looking over a pair. When I had the two little ones (who looked more black than white), I often noticed cops eyeballing me for a moment or two when they first saw us together. But they never questioned me because their observational skills and common sense quickly made it clear to them that the two black kids knew, trusted, and loved the old white guy they were with. So they moved on and focused their sharp eyeballs elsewhere.
That's what good cops do. They watch, they use their observational skills and common sense to assess the situation; and finding nothing suspicious, they move on.
Now let's get back to the case in question in this seed. Someone made a call and reported a possible abduction. Obviously, the cops had to do something. I also understand that the potential urgency of the situation could easily have precipitated a response that seems excessive in retrospect. So I don't fault the police up to that point. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt so far.
Where thing started to deteriorate began with the deputy constable's actions. It isn't difficult to distinguish between an adult who is "chasing" a child, and one who is supervising a child from behind. Children of that age have a very distinctive habit of running ahead of the adult who is watching them, then turning around and looking / waiting for the adult, and then running ahead again.
This behavior is not a game. It's actually a developmental tool. The children are exercising their freedom by running ahead, but their courage to do so is reinforced when they glance backward, and see that the trusted adult is still there. It's critical to their individuation as growing human beings that they know that the adults who love and protect them will still be there when they turn around. Knowing that gives them the comfort and courage they need to move forward.
This sort of behavior actually occurs, in various forms, throughout children's development, and even into adulthood. When humans embark on new journeys in life -- whether it's a 5-year-old running to the next street corner or a 25-year-old considering marriage -- we tend to "look back" to see if that the ones who love and care for us are still there. It's easier to take that next step if we know that they are. It gives us courage.
This behavior is so typical and so obvious that I find it hard to believe that any normal adult, especially a trained police officer, could mistake a child's run ahead / look back behavior for an abduction. But let's give her the benefit of the doubt again. If she did indeed have her doubts and found it necessary to question them, again, the child's statement that "he's my grandpa" should have been enough -- especially when she ran to him and hugged his leg.
A little girl who was being abducted would not have run away from a cop (especially a female cop) and to her abductor.
At that point, the constable should have apologized and left them alone. She also should have called whomever is responsible for dispatch and told them to call off the cavalry. And in the interest of giving her the benefit of the doubt yet again, possibly she did call in, but the cavalry came anyway. At that point she should have immediately informed APD either face-to-face or over the radio that she'd already questioned them, and had found nothing suspicious.
Instead, once the APD arrived, they completed the utter bungling of the situation. There was no reason to cuff grandpa, and certainly no reason to snatch up the child and physically force her into the cruiser -- in effect abducting her themselves, if you look at it from the little girl's perspective. Pretty ironic, huh? In the name of "protecting" her, they traumatized her.
One has to ask: Why such a ridiculous and over-the-top response?
Let's assume that somewhere in the process, the constable's finding that nothing suspicious was going on never made it to APD, so they were unaware of that. I'm trying to give APD the benefit of the doubt now. So they get this report of a possible abduction, and they see a chatty, black 5-year-old skipping alongside an old white man. If the child seemed to know and trust him, they should have stopped their investigation right there and moved on.
But let's give APD the benefit of the doubt yet again. The little girl was already pissed off and upset because of the prior questioning by the constable, and the APD officers could have interpreted her agitation as a sign that she was in trouble. A reasonable response at that point would have been for one car (or one or two officers on foot) to approach them, preferably with disarming smiles, start a conversation, and observe their responses.
"Good evening. Nice night for a walk," would have been a good choice, but there are plenty of other non-threatening phrases that could have been used. The most important thing would have been to observe how they responded, especially their non-verbal cues, and then decide how to proceed.
But that's not what APD did. They moved in like gangbusters, cuffed and detained grandpa, and roughly snatched up and terrorized the child by forcing her into a patrol car to be interrogated again. Why? Probably because the politicians have exaggerated the real problem of pedophilia to the point that on some level, even the cops simply assumed that the old man was a predator.
See the problem?
Being cautious is one thing. Simply assuming that any adult (especially a male) who's seen with a kid, is a pervert, is something else entirely. And that "something else" can have tragic results. In this case, the cops traumatized a little kid, which is tragic enough. But what if grandpa, still pissed from his prior meeting with the constable, had thrown up his hands in a gesture of frustration and started cussing?
It's very possible that one of the cops could have drawn and fired.
No, that's not far-fetched.
Look at the situation: The cops responded in such a way as to assume that the old man was a predator. They were already in that mode -- their actions demonstrated that quite clearly. On some emotional level, they were acting on the assumption that the old guy was a pervert in the act of kidnapping a little girl.
Given that emotional frame of reference, it wouldn't have taken very much for one of the cops to perceive a threat, draw his gun, and start shooting. An innocent gesture of frustration could have been enough to cause an even greater tragedy.
I am a big supporter of police in general. I literally know every cop on my town's police department. (Granted, there aren't very many of them because we're out in the sticks , but I do know them all.) I am always willing to give law enforcement officers the benefit of the doubt because I know that it's an impossible job to do perfectly, and a very difficult one to do well.
But in this case, there's just no way around the conclusion that this case was bungled. The cops screwed up at every stage of the operation, violating an old man's and a little girl's civil rights, and terrifying the child in the process. It was poorly handled from the get-go, and no amount of benefit of the doubt changes that.
- 4 votes
#26 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:53 AM ESTWell thank god it wasn't a black man with a white grand-daughter walking down the street...they would have just shot him.
- 6 votes
#27 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:11 PM ESTWell thank god it wasn't a black man with a white grand-daughter walking down the street...they would have just shot him.
Absolutely. He would not have had the time of day from anyone! :o(
- 6 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
