Ignore this at your peril: The USA is going down

[rederob]

You will (or should have noticed) that 'intent' forms no part of the legal test.

The officer acted intentionally. Therefore he formed an intent.
Prior to the officer acting he had observed the student for a few minutes. The student was sitting on his dormitory patio.
When he got up to continue collecting trash the officer decided to contact him in person.
Please explain how the officer's intent was formed such that his actions could be reasonable.

 

[ducati916]

1. The officer acted intentionally. Therefore he formed an intent.

2. Prior to the officer acting he had observed the student for a few minutes. The student was sitting on his dormitory patio.

3. When he got up to continue collecting trash the officer decided to contact him in person.
Please explain how the officer's intent was formed such that his actions could be reasonable.

1. No-one is actually denying the actus reus.

The issue is: is 'intent' an element that requires demonstration by the law so that the Officer may legally stop (detain) an individual and question him on his: (i) name, (ii) address, (iii) identification if available and (iv) an explanation of his actions.

The answer is no: it is not. That is the law. Therefore your post is not relevant to the issues.

If you remember it was your assertion that this is what was required:

2 & 3. These are evidentiary matters. We have not actually progressed that far yet. We will. First we just need to establish what the law requires. I'm sure we will get there eventually.


jog on
duc

 

[Country Lad]

Interesting how many people here must have the last word in a debate

 

[Value Collector]

Statistically, a black man is more likely to be a criminal, all else being equal. ?

When you get pulled over and searched more often you are more likely to be caught for things.

When officers are less likely to give you warnings and let you off for minor crimes you will end up with more charges.

When judges and juries are more likely to assume you are guilty you are going to end up with more convictions.

when societies prejudices make it harder for you to get ahead and find jobs etc, you are more likely to fall into poverty traps and end committing crimes.

Societies Bias show up in many ways, and its not just racial, females get let of more speeding tickets for example, "good looking people" get treated less harshly by juries etc

If you say that being black doesn't expose you to all sorts of negative bias you are a fool in my opinion.

 

[rederob]

1. No-one is actually denying the actus reus.

The issue is: is 'intent' an element that requires demonstration by the law so that the Officer may legally stop (detain) an individual and question him on his: (i) name, (ii) address, (iii) identification if available and (iv) an explanation of his actions.

View attachment 104318

The answer is no: it is not. That is the law. Therefore your post is not relevant to the issues.

If you remember it was your assertion that this is what was required:

View attachment 104319

2 & 3. These are evidentiary matters. We have not actually progressed that far yet. We will. First we just need to establish what the law requires. I'm sure we will get there eventually.


jog on
duc

Please answer the precise question I have twice asked.
Your points are not relevant because an action was taken and needs to be explained in and of itself.

 

[Value Collector]

I did watch the video and I agree there is an inbuilt fear with regard black guys.

Well that they only thing you have to know to be able to understand that often they receive harsher treatment than would be justified, and that sometimes that harsher treatment results is brutality, death or even just more charges, convictions or harassment.

 

[ducati916]

Please answer the precise question I have twice asked.

Your points are not relevant because an action was taken and needs to be explained in and of itself.

Already answered.

The Officer's 'intent' is not relevant to the legal question. An Officer 'may' detain an individual if the above section is complied with: viz. that the Officer 'reasonably suspects' the individual fulfils the required elements.

Therefore the legal question becomes: did the Officer have grounds (evidentiary) to reasonably suspect?

Are we ready to move forward?

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

View attachment 104321

Already answered.

View attachment 104322

The Officer's 'intent' is not relevant to the legal question. An Officer 'may' detain an individual if the above section is complied with: viz. that the Officer 'reasonably suspects' the individual fulfils the required elements.

Therefore the legal question becomes: did the Officer have grounds (evidentiary) to reasonably suspect?

Are we ready to move forward?

jog on
duc

If you cannot explain the basis for the officer's action then anything else you post is irrelevant.

 

[Klogg]

When you get pulled over and searched more often you are more likely to be caught for things.

When officers are less likely to give you warnings and let you off for minor crimes you will end up with more charges.

When judges and juries are more likely to assume you are guilty you are going to end up with more convictions.

when societies prejudices make it harder for you to get ahead and find jobs etc, you are more likely to fall into poverty traps and end committing crimes.

Societies Bias show up in many ways, and its not just racial, females get let of more speeding tickets for example, "good looking people" get treated less harshly by juries etc

If you say that being black doesn't expose you to all sorts of negative bias you are a fool in my opinion.

"If you say that being black doesn't expose you to all sorts of negative bias you are a fool in my opinion"

It most definitely does, no argument there. I'm saying that :
- Statistics justify the behaviour, at the micro level.
- It's a disadvantage to train yourself out of it, at the micro level.

To your first point: We don't know if increased searching is resulting in increased crime, or visa versa.
How do you prove which way the causal effect actually goes? (There might be answer here and I'm just ignorant of it - would love to know either way)

 

[ducati916]

If you cannot explain the basis for the officer's action then anything else you post is irrelevant.

That is exactly what we are going to explain. The basis for his action must be: that the Officer 'reasonably suspects' the individual fulfils the required elements.

The explanation (evidentiary basis) must comply with the law. We are on the same page up to this point. The only discussion is regarding the correct law that needs to be complied with.

'Intention' or in legal terms, 'mens rea' is not a required element by the section.

I think we are ready to move forward.

jog on
duc

 

[SirRumpole]

when societies prejudices make it harder for you to get ahead and find jobs etc, you are more likely to fall into poverty traps and end committing crimes.

Definitely true, but I think there is also an inbuilt prejudice of blacks (African Americans and Aborigines) against whites and white society and the perfectly understandable reluctance of some black people to shrug off their own culture and adopt a "foreign" one.

There is a lot of action with regard to African Americans vs white society in the USA, but at least the USA seems to have made peace with indigenous Americans and given them their own self managed reserves and land titles.

 

[rederob]

That is exactly what we are going to explain.

Then please go ahead and explain the officer's motivation.

 

[ducati916]

Then please go ahead and explain the officer's motivation.

I'm not going to explain his motivation. Again, irrelevant to the legal question.

What I will do is look at the evidence (which likely will require additional information) that is available and see if it complies with the legal requirements.

Your position is clear: the Officer had no reasonable grounds for his actions.

Just to clarify: the video that we are discussing appears at post #75 on pg.4. That is correct?

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

I'm not going to explain his motivation. Again, irrelevant to the legal question.

It's the nub of the entire issue, and you cannot grasp this basic fact.

 

[ducati916]

It's the nub of the entire issue, and you cannot grasp this basic fact.

Your words.

Racism cannot occur if the Officer's actions are lawful (and consistent). At the moment we are simply looking at whether the Officer's actions are lawful. If they are, we are half-way to demonstrating that no racism exists, according to your definition.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

View attachment 104326

Your words.

Racism cannot occur if the Officer's actions are lawful (and consistent). At the moment we are simply looking at whether the Officer's actions are lawful. If they are, we are half-way to demonstrating that no racism exists, according to your definition.

jog on
duc

Where is your explanation of the officer's actions?

 

[SirRumpole]

Where is your explanation of the officer's actions?

Reasonable suspicion. That is a matter of personal opinion of course, but police officers are allowed to apply it given their experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

 

[rederob]

Reasonable suspicion. That is a matter of personal opinion of course, but police officers are allowed to apply it given their experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Thanks Rumpy.
All @ducati916 needs to do is explain how that was formed.

 

[sptrawler]

Well that they only thing you have to know to be able to understand that often they receive harsher treatment than would be justified, and that sometimes that harsher treatment results is brutality, death or even just more charges, convictions or harassment.

The prejudice against people is usually born of something other than inherited genetically, would you be comfortable depositing your money in ratesetters, if it was based in Nigeria? If not, is that racist? It certainly could be perceived as racist.
But in reality I wouldn't because of a poor reputation regarding their ethics, nothing to do with their race, well following on from that a lot of the problem is perception, that is based on anecdotal and visual inputs of black people on the news featuring in violent incidents.
In the same way as many of the scams reported are based in Nigeria, it leads to a perception Nigeria isn't a good place to put your money and possibly Nigerian people are untrustworthy, that isn't racist. It is a normal reaction to real inputs.

 

[ducati916]

So since you have not indicated that this is the wrong video, I am simply going to assume that it is the correct one.

These quotes from the video are not arranged chronologically.

The most important quote from the Officer is:

"...we've had some stuff going on in this area."

This is prima facie evidence that would require rebuttal. Clearly I accept that this is simply not possible. Is it a reasonable proposition? I would argue that it is: the police receive reports from the public all of the time. Is it possible that the police had received reports of criminal or non-criminal issues in that area? Of course it is. This would in the normal course of events simply be an issue of disclosure and would resolve the matter factually.

Therefore the first question that must be asked is:

(1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime;

The first of these requirements is determined by whether there were specific and articulable facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant's personal security. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).

Therefore what other variables (specific) were present (and can be articulated) that could fulfil the legal requirements: these were both present and articulated by the Officer:

(a) '...we've had stuff going on in this area'; and
(b) signs for trespassing, private property were present; and
(c) '...noticed that you were sitting on the patio behind the building'.

Do these 2 additional variables (other than (a)) fulfil the legal requirements, when taken together with rational inferences, to detain the individual on 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity, past, present or future?

Clearly yes. Trespassing is a (present) criminal offence. That is sufficient in of itself, to warrant a detention to determine whether it was factually a trespass or whether the individual had the legal right to be on the property. Combined with 'stuff going on in the area' and 'sitting at the back of the building', the Officer would have fulfilled the legal requirements to detain the individual.

Investigatory stops constitute an intermediate response by the police between non-detention and arrest. These procedures are permissible only for the purpose of questioning a suspect, who might otherwise escape, regarding his identity or observed behaviour in order temporarily to maintain the status quo while seeking to procure more information regarding possible wrongdoing. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct. People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980).

The Officer was well within his rights to question the individual.

Therefore, it follows, if the detention was legal, there can be no racism (your words).

jog on
duc