NYC and Police Harassment (Update)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe there must be a level of trust between the police, and the citizenry protected by the police. In order to be effective, and in defference to officer safety. Society should alow individual officers some lattitude, and discretion in their normal every day duties. IMO based on my own experiences, and observations.... Most abuse is systemic, rather than individual.
Click to expand...
That sounds good in theory, but how do you suggest such trust be established or renewed? It seems pretty apparent to me that for a good percentage of the populace, this trust is either very limited in scope or non-existant.

For me personally, the term "the police" is a bit broad here; i have more trust or faith in certain police departments and less in others. For me, this is based on the history/track record of those departments in dealing with myself and others. The local city police here have a good track record with me and with people i know; i wouldn't have much difficulty putting a good bit of trust in them, maybe not full & complete trust but substantial. The local Sheriff's department has a record and reputation less worthy of trust, IMO; i view them and their actions or statements with suspicion. The city police department in Memphis, TN (lived there for a decade or so) was always VERY professional with my friends and with me and has a pretty good reputation; i wouldn't have much trouble trusting them. That trust is easily reduced by the bad actions of some few officers, but how it can be restored, i don't know.
 
about a week before I received the summons, a prominent defense attorney who lives in an affluent section of the community that is served by the same precinct was arrested for disorderly conduct during a routine traffic stop. I've learned that he simply was questioning the reason for the traffic stop when he was arrested. He's a very well respected citizen of the community.

My original post was whether the search was legal or not. The DA has determined that the search was illegal and dismissed the charges on that basis. I've since confirmed that the knife is legal to carry. But the fact remains that the search was illegal and the DA agreed. So the police officers were wrong on two counts. 1. the search was illegal and 2. the knife is legal to carry. The DA's ruling proves that.

bubsy
 
I've learned that he simply was questioning the reason for the traffic stop when he was arrested. He's a very well respected citizen of the community.
Click to expand...

I am certain there is another side to this story, perhaps a little aggravated DYKWIA? :rolleyes:
 
bubsy, would you do anything different if you had it to do over again, knowing what you know now? Maybe the " never talk to the cops" idea wasn't in your best interest in this case?
 
Maybe the " never talk to the cops" idea wasn't in your best interest in this case?
Click to expand...
That's not the first time the OP's heard that in this thread, and as gracious as he has been about all of this leads me to believe he did nothing to aggravate the situation. I haven't seen a bitter word through all of this. It has also been established that he never refused to answer questions. What you are really saying is he should have engaged in a little DYKWIA. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Those officers knew of his social worker status in plenty of time to let it go, but they didn't. Why would mentioning it earlier have changed anything? And why wouldn't it have been perceived as mere DYKWIA? Of course it would have. Because these officers had made up their mind about the OP, am I right? And why would they afford a gang banger's social worker any cred? I'm calling BS.
 
Last edited:
You can call BS all day long, doesn't make it true. I believe that it would have been to his advantage to tell them that he was a social worker and that he was meeting with clients immediately. That would explain why he was with known gang members, not that he was up to no good, but that it was work related. Putting myself in the cops shoes, I would have cut him loose as soon as I knew that. Maybe they would not have, maybe they would have. Its not a "do you know who I am?" to explain why you are with gang members when it's your job to be with them. And it is not allowing the gestapo to trample your rights to explain that you are meeting with gang members for work, not to score dope or a gun, or a hooker.
 
Yes, the detectives saw me speaking with the gang members. From what I've been told, it's best to say as little as possible when the police stop you in the hood I work in, so I did just that. It wasn't until after they searched me and the vehicle that they bothered to ask me what type of work I did. Then I gave them my work ID and explained what I did and why I had been speaking with the two gang members. Incidentally, I also gave them my DEA card, "Detectives Endowment Association" that was given to me by my neighbor who is a retired NYPD Detective. Anyone who has that card should be given courteous treatment but they didn't care.

It turns out that my folding knife isn't legal in NYC because it "locks" in the open position. It IS legal in Nassau country Long Island, however.

Yes, the police officers did see me talking to the gang members. No, I wasn't better dressed than the gang members (I wear jeans, Nikes' and a "hoodie") to fit in. Am I older? I'm 50 and Caucasian. At the request of my attorney, I have gotten signed statements from the gang members indicating that they are my patients at the clinic.

From the original thread.

I would hazard a guess that " Yes Detective, I was talking to gang members, I am a social worker and they are cleints. Here is my social worker ID." would have ended the encounter right there.
 
I would hazard a guess that " Yes Detective, I was talking to gang members, I am a social worker and they are cleints. Here is my social worker ID." would have ended the encounter right there.
Click to expand...
OK. But a only a few minutes later, when they did have all that info, they were undeterred. Please explain. It doesn't add up, sorry.
 
I don't know, I wasn't there. Maybe once they had searched the vehicle and found the knife they decided to make the arrest? Thinking that the knife was illegal they decided an arrest was warranted? I don't know, but I don't think the search and subsequent discovery of the knife would have ever happened if he had done what I described above. I am not saying that everyone should immediately confess to everything they have ever done wrong the instant they are even approached by police, but there are many many many times that a little explaining can head off lots of trouble and problems.
 
What you are really saying is he should have engaged in a little DYKWIA. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


I wasn't refering to OP I was refering to the prominent attorney arrested for DC.
 
I wasn't refering to OP I was refering to the prominent attorney arrested for DC.
Click to expand...
I know. But the attorney was suggested to have engaged in DYKWIA, and that was mentioned as a possible reason for his treatment.

But the social worker did NOT engage in DYKWIA, at least initially, and THAT was suggested to have been the reason for HIS circumstances.

So which is it, mention your position and influence, or not? Either way it seems to be a reason to get the shaft.
 
Last edited:
It would not be mentioning position and influence when you have a legitimate reason to be contacting gang members. There is a big difference between " I am mister prominent attorney, you can't arrest me I know the mayor/county board member/state representative" and " I was speaking with gang members/criminals because they are clients." One explains why you are there with those criminals, one attempts to prevent an arrest/garner special treatment because they know/are important people.
 
Maybe this is just restating the obvious, but i think the problem lies in the fact that what one person considers "PC & second guessing" might be considered "speaking up in defense of civil liberties and their Fourth Amendment rights" by another citizen. Not everybody agrees on what those liberties & rights are, exactly; it is my understanding that our court systems have entertained many spirited discussions over the limitations on the Fourth's protections and the limitations faced by our LEO's.
Click to expand...

My point is that the street is not the place to be a soldier in the war for civil rights and as long as we have Habeas Corpus you should cooperate on the street and litigate in the courts.

THIS PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT ENDORSE OR APPROVE OF POLICE MISBEHAVIOR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top