Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Dorothy Bland gets caught

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Dorothy Bland gets caught
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A blog I follow wrote a lot of this and typing it in from a phone is too irritating so lot of paste here and by by mostly I mean all.

Dorothy Bland is a professor at the University of North Texas who also happens to be black. One day, while out for a power walk near her home an in affluent suburb, Ms. Bland was asked to stop for a chat by the police. What happened next, according to an op-ed she published in the Dallas Morning News, was nothing short of a horror show.
quote:
Flashing lights and sirens from a police vehicle interrupted a routine Saturday morning walk in my golf-course community in Corinth…

Like most African-Americans, I am familiar with the phrase “driving while black,” but was I really being stopped for walking on the street in my own neighborhood? Yes. In the words of Sal Ruibal, “Walking while black is a crime in many jurisdictions. May God have mercy on our nation.”

Knowing that the police officers are typically armed with guns and are a lot bigger than my 5 feet, 4 inches, I had no interest in my life’s story playing out like Trayvon Martin’s death. I stopped and asked the two officers if there was a problem; I don’t remember getting a decent answer before one of the officers asked me where I lived and for identification.

Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the police had a dash cam in their car and they were on microphones for the entire encounter. There were no sirens. The two officers didn’t shake the woman down. Before she even had a chance to begin badgering them about why they were there they patiently and politely explained that a truck had come close to hitting her because she was walking on the right side of a narrow road and they asked her to walk on the left side so she could see the oncoming traffic. They repeatedly explain that they are concerned for her safety while addressing her as “Ma’am.”

Because they want to file a report after having spoken to her they ask her for her ID which she does not have. As is the case with people who don’t have their ID, one officer gets on the radio to confirm her identity. She keeps acting upset over the fact they stopped her to talk and insisted on taking their picture, but in the end they all shake hands and walk away.

If the dash cam hadn’t been on and the audio good enough, we would have had two more officers branded as racists and facing all sorts of problems after they had been as polite as you could imagine anyone being.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad we all agree that police should be closely monitored and their interactions with civilians recorded on camera.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm glad we all agree that police should be closely monitored and their interactions with civilians recorded on camera.

Ditto.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, does this fraud offset the cop who committed suicide In Illinois and staged it to implicate cop killers?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Rafi, does this fraud offset the cop who committed suicide In Illinois and staged it to implicate cop killers?

How are they connected? As far as I know, Ms. Bland was not there - it's over a 1000 miles away.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm glad we all agree that police should be closely monitored and their interactions with civilians recorded on camera.

Ditto.
I'm sure you'd both agree that black people should be closely monitored and their interactions with civilians recorded on camera. It's the same rationale ....
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it's not. The important determining factor is someone's performance while on the job. Black or white (or green), we care about the job cops are doing, and do not trust cops to do those jobs effectively without surveillance anymore.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm fully behind cameras everywhere, though I suspect they won't stop people from confusing signal and noise when it comes to police misbehavior.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, it's not. The important determining factor is someone's performance while on the job. Black or white (or green), we care about the job cops are doing, and do not trust cops to do those jobs effectively without surveillance anymore.

Yes, it is. Black on black violence is exponentially a larger problem than a few corrupt police officers. Deny it all you want, won't change the facts.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I'm fully behind cameras everywhere, though I suspect they won't stop people from confusing signal and noise when it comes to police misbehavior.

I don't know about that. Who controls those cameras, how long is it stored? Pervasive government surveillance may not be the panacea it appears to be.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Black on black violence is exponentially a larger problem than a few corrupt police officers.
Sure, but we're not looking to solve the problem of violence in general. We are looking to solve the problem of misbehavior on the part of government-sanctioned enforcers of law.

The problem isn't generic violence; it's misapplication of authority.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently what is needed is for police to eliminate hyper-vigilance. They need to be hyper-trusting and assume the best of people. After a few decades of them being gunned down or assaulted ,the sympathy of the people will be on their side, and we will have our idyllic officers of the peace back. Community members we all know by name. At least the ones who live that long, and don't quit, or transfer to a nice low crime suburb...

Recruitment will probably be even lower than it is now though. On second thought we should probably start working on Robocop. I mean, an officer who IS a camera must be better than an officer just wearing a camera. We could give them only thermal optics. Then they could be truly race blind!

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way I look at it, we reverentially talk about police officers and thank them for their service because, specifically, they put themselves at risk for the benefit of society. If they act to minimize that risk in a way that reduces the benefit to society, our reverence for them can indeed be naturally expected to decline.

So, yes, police officers should lean towards giving civilians the benefit of the doubt, even when it increases danger to themselves. But if they are unwilling to do this, I'm fine with constant surveillance of police.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OTOH, police officers are involved in much higher incidences of domestic violence. They comprise a group more prone to violent (and abusive) behavior than virtually any other profession.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are concerned about the safety of police officers, maybe some reasonable gun control would be in order?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually for reasonable gun control if you were asking me kmbboots.

As long as the laws are enforceable, the technology is reliable enough that law enforcement (local and federal) would adopt them, and they may actually prove effective in terms of public safety (as opposed to just being a political victory chipping away towards banning all firearms); then I'm probably for it.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's entirely in the spirit of liberty to have mass surveillance on government and on authority figures. I hope no one would be inclined to conflate this with mass surveillance of the civilian population by government.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's unfortunate that that perspective bears a shred of value. Since when should the population be so afraid of its democratic institutions that we have to spy on the very people we elect to serve us. This is the basis of the culture of mistrust that is so central to Republican talking points and so unfathomable to me. I mean, we tell the world that we are the beacon of liberty, but we can't trust our own government. Which is it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
It's unfortunate that that perspective bears a shred of value. Since when should the population be so afraid of its democratic institutions that we have to spy on the very people we elect to serve us. This is the basis of the culture of mistrust that is so central to Republican talking points and so unfathomable to me. I mean, we tell the world that we are the beacon of liberty, but we can't trust our own government. Which is it?

It took exactly one post for someone to conflate the two things I said shouldn't be conflated. It isn't spying on government to monitor what they're doing, it's called oversight. The fact that people should be mistrustful of government is a founding principle of the U.S., not some weird failing in democracy as you're suggesting. Spying is when intelligence agents conduct surveillance on people (domestically or abroad) who aren't really aware it's happening. Or if they vaguely know it could be happening they can't know for sure; there is no transparency in spying. Setting up a transparent oversight system for government is the opposite of spying - it's an increase in making sure things are on the up and up.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would rather elect an intelligent scoundrel who was aware of shady tactics but never given the opportunity to act corruptly, than an incompetent saint who wouldn't act corruptly if given the opportunity.

I want devious tactical scoundrels working FOR me, as long as I have assurances they won't turn on me. Perhaps that's why we tend to elect some people who seem like buffoons. Lacking those assurances we go for a false sense of security?

[ November 05, 2015, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fact that people should be mistrustful of government is a founding principle of the U.S., not some weird failing in democracy as you're suggesting
Engaged, participatory government was the founding principle.Not mistrust, but rather constant effort to maintain it properly. Distrust is a much more recent invention pushed as a campaign of disengagement and undermining of institutions that otherwise protected people from exploitation by sowing distrust and doubt about them. (Then offering to "fox" them in ways that are designed to fail, like the SS "lockbox" and the Clinton era welfare changed such that there's future political justification to further undermine such protections.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, it goes beyond oversight. Clinton is being dissected by a political party while at the same time scoundrels are coddled. I call it spying because police are so untrustworthy (in the minds of those that have been unfairly abused) that their very job function appears to be an aberration of their official role. There's a gray area separating competent and trustworthy from many flavors of different things.

Answer this: Should the US go to the Mideast or elsewhere and proclaim that those countries should model themselves on our principles or on the way we operate? Which would describe us?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must confess I don't understand the question. Are you expressing a dichotomy between American principles and the current American system, or are you asking a foreign policy question? Under the assumption it's the former then I still don't know what you're getting at. No one here likely thinks America is currently run according to its principles, at least in every regard.

If nothing else, Hillary is definitely guilty of trying to evade oversight, and while it may or may not be correct to grill her about it beyond noting that she did something wrong, it's definitely incorrect to write off her using a private server as fine. It's not fine, because her data is supposed to be accessible for review. Scoundrels likewise shouldn't be coddled, although a lack of transparency is not the only way in which things can go haywire. Lobbying, for example, happens right out in the open and isn't an oversight issue at all; it's legal corruption and an entirely separate problem. But on the subject of oversight those who dispense physical force should be maximally scrutinized to ensure it's done properly. We know for 100% certain police departments lie to cover the actions of certain bad seeds, and this has to be prevented.

[ November 05, 2015, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I must confess I don't understand the question. Are you expressing a dichotomy between American principles and the current American system, or are you asking a foreign policy question? Under the assumption it's the former then I still don't know what you're getting at. No one here likely thinks America is currently run according to its principles, at least in every regard.
I agree with that, however, we too often like to think that we export democracy. Recall our stated objective for the Iraq war in 2003 to create a beacon of democracy that would transform the region.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
I must confess I don't understand the question. Are you expressing a dichotomy between American principles and the current American system, or are you asking a foreign policy question? Under the assumption it's the former then I still don't know what you're getting at. No one here likely thinks America is currently run according to its principles, at least in every regard.
I agree with that, however, we too often like to think that we export democracy. Recall our stated objective for the Iraq war in 2003 to create a beacon of democracy that would transform the region.
Who is this "we?" A few in the power elite stated on behalf of everyone this was being done, and some of the populace believed what was being said, which isn't quite the same thing as believing that the American people export democracy. In lieu of everything we know now I would suggest that America has rarely ever actually attempted to export democracy, with a notable exception being perhaps South Korea. I personally do not believe that exporting democracy was even remotely part of the motive behind any U.S. foreign aggressive acts since 2001. But that was how it was sold, along with fear.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're talking past each other again. I think you like to parse and reparse so you can keep talking while not really adding a lot. "We" is "us", "us" is our government. I don't see much here to comment further on, except that this doesn't even make sense:
quote:
I personally do not believe that exporting democracy was even remotely part of the motive behind any U.S. foreign aggressive acts since 2001. But that was how it was sold, along with fear.
If it does make sense, then it's just flat wrong, since Bush said on the eve of their 2005 election based on their new Constitution:
quote:
It's also going to take awhile for them to form a government. The work ahead will require patience of the Iraqi people and will require our patience as well, yet we must remember that a free Iraq is in our interests, because a free Iraq will be a beacon of hope, and as the Middle East grows in liberty, the American people will become safer and our nation will be more secure.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're not talking past each other, you just don't like what I say and pretend it doesn't make sense.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's like you are basing your argument on it being a minor nuisance to change our own internal propaganda. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1