Black Person, Black Hoodie = Reasonable Suspicion?

I'll add my 2 cents, lol.

Do I think it (skin colour or "suspicious" behavior) constitutes being pulled over, no I don't. However, it's reality.

A long time ago I learned that once you are dealing with a person with a badge and a weapon, I expect pretty well anything as they are trained to be "aggressive" and "take charge" :o. Many time they are in "one of those moods" and I really don't have any idea what their day has been like so I generally expect them to overstep their bounds and of course assume I am guilty of something, black/white/brown/yellow don't really factor in for me. I have to assume they are looking for something and I don't plan on giving it to them if I can help it. On the same token, they are there to serve and protect but that's for another thread :D.

Edit: As for the hoodie, should not be worn in an enclosed environment IMO....can easily be misconstrued.
 
Last edited:
But as soon as they were satisfied they apologized and ended the stop. It is what it is. The police werent profiling the description, not any particular people.
Click to expand...

But if this stop actually happened as described, are they not required to record the stop? This brings up two questions in my mind. #1 Did the stop really occur?

#2 If it did occur, what reason would they have for not logging it?

Look, I get cops are not perfect, but if they screw up, it needs to be addressed. I can concede the point of pulling the car over based on a glimpse of a person in dim light, raining. I may even stretch to believe the handcuffing. But to not record or log the stop especially if it is dept procedure, smacks of something amiss. Then, by not to far of a stretch, if, they violated procedure, why? The mentality that cops can get a free pass because they are exposed to danger all the time doesn't wash. If they break their laws(regs), they need to be called to answer for it. Same as the rest.
 
Rusty35 said:
I just stated that the vast majority of the non thug population wear hoodies.
Click to expand...
I don't think you wrote what you intended to say. If you DID write what you meant, I want hard numbers to document your hypothesis. What IS the total non-thug population in the U.S., and of that total exactly how many really wear hoodies? I'm a non-thug, as is my entire family. The only member of my family who has ever worm a hoodie is my 16-year old daughter -- and she doesn't own a black hoodie.

What you wrote is that, out of the total population who are not thugs, most ("the vast majority") wear hoodies. I don't think that's correct.
 
The vast majority of hoodie wearers aren't thugs.

The vast majority of gun owners are thugs.

The vast majority of gun owners don't wear hoodies? Wait, is this logic class?

I think the first two statements are what was trying to be said.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I think the first two statements are what was trying to be said.
Click to expand...
I don't. I think the first statement might be what was intended. I don't think the second was included.

This is why it's important for people to learn to read and write English. Words are the only medium of communication we generally have. If we can't put forth our arguments in words clear enough that readers can understand what we said ... we are not "communicating."
 
Aguila Blanca said:
This is why it's important for people to learn to read and write English. Words are the only medium of communication we generally have. If we can't put forth our arguments in words clear enough that readers can understand what we said ... we are not "communicating."
Click to expand...

This is a dead on assessment of so many "law enforcement" non-abuse of power issues.
 
Oh, I can't type. I apologize.

I meant:

The vast majority of hoodie wearers aren't thugs.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't thugs.

-- Duh on my part! :confused:
 
Conn.Trooper, what is your take on that aspect? Would it be normal to stop a possible armed robber in that manner?

I wouldn't, but then cops use all different tactics based upon their training and department policy. I have no idea what cops in that area do or don't do. I would probably make sure I have a cover car and either conduct a full felony stop, or at least approach the vehicle with cover.

My take on this whole thing is just this;
1) The police have been provided a description of an armed robbery suspect.
2) At 10 p.m. (I will go out on a limb and guess it was dark) and in the rain, they saw someone they felt matched the description. There may be more to the story as far as maybe having a vehicle description also. The police don't give all the onformation to newspapers. Could be an ace in the hole that they have a vehicle from surveillance video. I am speculating here, I don't know this.
3) It was in the area of the prior robbery.
4) They made an investigatory stop and determined they didn't have the person they thought they did.
5) The person being detained was released with an apology.

I am not seeing the problem here.

As for not calling it in, so what? When my barracks is busy we do what we have to do and either create the call ourselves on our MDT's or wait until the radio slows down and call it in after. I have made stops and called them in after the fact or not at all. If the dispatch center is busy, and I have a backup car or officer with me, I would make the stop and not worry about calling it in. Could be this is what happened and they forgot to call it in, or just got busy and never did it. I don't see anything sinister in this.
 
On a side note, I "profile" every day. Not racial profiling, but vehicles. I see a car with one plate, maybe stuck on the dashboard and not mounted on the car, whatever. I know from my training and experience that persons driving unregistered cars, or cars with switched/stolen plates, will often take any plate they find or steal and throw it on the dash or the back window and away they go.

I see a vehicle that is dirty, and has a clean plate held on with one new shiny screw, I pay attention to that car.

I see a combination or commercial plate being displayed on a car, I pay attention.

I see a vehicle with a broken vent window, I pay attention.

I see a vehicle with recent damage, I pay attention.

None of the above ( besides the plate being on the dash and not securely mounted, that is illegal per CGS 14-18c) are illegal, but they are indicators of possible illegal activity.

Anybody that racially profiles is a moron, there are criminals of every shape, size and color, dedicating yourself to looking at one race is foolish. I look for criminals every day, black, white, green or smurf blue.
 
I get pulled over a lot once they figure out that I'm an American Indian instead of a Mexican I get a verbal warning to slow down, I sometimes drift up to almost 5 miles over the speed limit like almost everyone else on the road, I got pulled over on my Harley once and the LEO said I was going too slow (40 in a 45 but I was stuck behind someone) he asked if I was American Indian and then we talked about motorcycles for 5 minutes
 
Dear Conn Trooper,

If you come across someone in a black hoodie in 110 degree heat in the middle of the day, what are your thoughts as a trooper?
 
Called in or not called in;

Did anyone read the second half of my post # 40. I tried to recreate the "radio soup" that does occur on calls like this.

It is very possible the officer driving was out the door with his gun out as his partner was on the mic radioing to dispatch where they were and who with yet most of the transmission was lost, stepped on, etc and the amount of traffic covered the part that was heard. The passenger once he keyed up and transmitted was out of the car backing up his partner.
When they got back in service that was it. 185 in service, or 185 back 10-8, or 185 10-8. As far as they knew they got out on the call and got back in. End of story.
 
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member

Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 2,260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty35
I just stated that the vast majority of the non thug population wear hoodies.
I don't think you wrote what you intended to say. If you DID write what you meant, I want hard numbers to document your hypothesis. What IS the total non-thug population in the U.S., and of that total exactly how many really wear hoodies? I'm a non-thug, as is my entire family. The only member of my family who has ever worm a hoodie is my 16-year old daughter -- and she doesn't own a black hoodie.

What you wrote is that, out of the total population who are not thugs, most ("the vast majority") wear hoodies. I don't think that's correct.
Click to expand...

Ok so I may have overstepped with the"vast majority" bit.

Rephrase.
Every one I know wears a hoodie.

I dont personally know any thugs.
 
110 degrees. Common in TX - but the kids wear hoodies because that is their uniform driven by adolescent conformity.

It is cold by TX standards now - 40 to 50 with cold rain. But we see kids in T shirts and shorts - because it is another uniform.

So I wouldn't overinterpret stupid teenagers.
 
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff

110 degrees. Common in TX - but the kids wear hoodies because that is their uniform driven by adolescent conformity.

It is cold by TX standards now - 40 to 50 with cold rain. But we see kids in T shirts and shorts - because it is another uniform.

So I wouldn't overinterpret stupid teenagers.
Click to expand...

Sure fire recipe for insanity;)
 
Stupid teenagers I encountered yesterday were not wearing hoodies. They were dressed more country boy style, and driving jacked 4x4s.

Problem was, they were racing through town in a 25mph, pedestrian shopping area. Their engines seemed to be supercharged, and they had loud pipes. This was in an area with a lot of Amish, and a lot of horses and buggies on the road. Horses do not react well to loud engines. Pedestrians do not react well to getting run over by large trucks.

Stupidity has no dress code.

I'd hate to see these two yahoos with firearms...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top