Black Drivers Make up Majority of Minneapolis Police Searches During Routine Traffic Stops

[Salty]

...Had you told the judge the truth, i.e., “your honor, the reason I searched the vehicle was because the black man was rude to me when I asked for permission to search the vehicle. That is a clear ‘indicator’ a crime has been or is being committed, according to my personal code of investigation”, you would have lost the appeal. ...

(Bold - my emphasis)

I highly doubt that he would have included the word "black man" in his statement.
Why is it, so many always want to make race the central point in any discussion.
UNLESS it has a direct effect on the situation at hand.

Several years ago, at a small Army base I was at,a female had been murdered. The next morning
the MP's wanted all black GI's to stand formation for the purpose of identification. This was a request -
not a direct order. Well, some of the Black GI's refuse to do so.
So why didn't the MP's request for White GI's to stand formation -
Because wittiness said that the assailant was Black.

You stated that you are glad that Reynolds is no longer an active LEO, based on what you read.
That could possibly be considered a racist statement.

 

[canadyjd]

....
If you literally read what I say and stop interjecting your assumptions, you will reach the correct conclusions...

When Jesus concluded the parable of the good Semaritan, He asked a rhetorical question, “who was a neighbor” to the man that had been injured? Everyone knew exactly what He meant.

You told your own story. You said this is how it “Usually” went with you. Stop a white man, he is polite and cooperative. Stop a black man, he says “f... you! I don’t have to tell you my sh..”

Then you asked a rhetorical question, “which vehicle do you think will get searched?”

Everyone knows the answer to the question you asked. It is clear. You search the vehicles of blacks because they were rude to you, not because of PC.

You violated their civil rights “Usually”, according to your post #42.

peace you

 

[Salty]

When Jesus concluded the parable of the good Semaritan, He asked a rhetorical question, “who was a neighbor” to the man that had been injured? Everyone knew exactly what He meant.

You told your own story. You said this is how it “Usually” went with you. Stop a white man, he is polite and cooperative. Stop a black man, he says “f... you! I don’t have to tell you my sh..”

Then you asked a rhetorical question, “which vehicle do you think will get searched?”

Everyone knows the answer to the question you asked. It is clear. You search the vehicles of blacks because they were rude to you, not because of PC.

You violated their civil rights “Usually”, according to your post #42.

peace you

Yep, you are right -
At every traffic stop Whites are totally cooperative 100% of the time with LEO
and every black driver will cuss out the LEO.

 

[canadyjd]

Yep, you are right -
At every traffic stop Whites are totally cooperative 100% of the time with LEO
and every black driver will cuss out the LEO.

You are not keeping up with the posts.

The other poster made those statements in post #42. He never said it was 100%. He said it was how his traffic stops “Usually” went.

I’m calling him out for what is clear, imo, racial bias by a LEO. He indicated he searched the vehicles of black drivers that were rude to him. That violates civil rights, imo.

Anytime a LEO has publicly stated clear racial bias, I consider it a good thing they have retired.

We can disagree if you like.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

You are making it sound like 100%

 

[canadyjd]

You are making it sound like 100%

I’m repeating what another poster said about how his traffic stops “Usually” went. See post #42 for the clear racial bias of a retired LEO.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Like I said, the courts and the public, generally, believe LEO’s are honest and will not lie.

Had you told the judge the truth, i.e., “your honor, the reason I searched the vehicle was because the black man was rude to me when I asked for permission to search the vehicle. That is a clear ‘indicator’ a crime has been or is being committed, according to my personal code of investigation”, you would have lost the appeal.

I suspect many of your searches would have been thrown out had your clear racial bias, (based on your own statements in POST #42), been been known.

I’ve had enough, I think. You will continue to attempt to justify your actions as a LEO, call me names and deny what you stated in post#42.

I think I remember you stating you were retired, and that’s a good thing for all.

peace to you

Pure lies.
I had no racial bias. No search was conducted because of rudeness. You are simply bearing false witness.

 

[Reynolds]

When Jesus concluded the parable of the good Semaritan, He asked a rhetorical question, “who was a neighbor” to the man that had been injured? Everyone knew exactly what He meant.

You told your own story. You said this is how it “Usually” went with you. Stop a white man, he is polite and cooperative. Stop a black man, he says “f... you! I don’t have to tell you my sh..”

Then you asked a rhetorical question, “which vehicle do you think will get searched?”

Everyone knows the answer to the question you asked. It is clear. You search the vehicles of blacks because they were rude to you, not because of PC.

You violated their civil rights “Usually”, according to your post #42.

peace you

More lies. I have explained this to you, but you prefer to bear false witness. No vehicle was ever searched because someone was rude. You made a wrong assumption and you are too dishonest to admit your grave mistake.

 

[just-want-peace]

Just for the record (and my curiosity?) canadyjd, you are adamant about what really happens (is happening) from an LEO traffic stop!! Statements have been explained that, IMHO, should have cleared up the fog, so, what qualifies you to determine that all the explanations are just bovine (snip),(expression) or are you just arguing from a "pride" standpoint now!?

 

[canadyjd]

Just for the record (and my curiosity?) canadyjd, you are adamant about what really happens (is happening) from an LEO traffic stop!! Statements have been explained that, IMHO, should have cleared up the fog, so, what qualifies you to determine that all the explanations are just bovine excrement, or are you just arguing from a "pride" standpoint now!?

We will disagree that his statements have “cleared up the fog” because there is no fog. The poster clearly indicated he, as a LEO, searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they were rude to him during traffic stops. He said that is how his traffic stops “Usually went”. See post #42. That is a violation of civil rights.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

More lies. I have explained this to you, but you prefer to bear false witness. No vehicle was ever searched because someone was rude. You made a wrong assumption and you are too dishonest to admit your grave mistake.

I repeated what you said in post #42. The only mistake made was you posting in a public forum your racially biased practice of searching the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they were rude to you during traffic stops.

As I stated before, it is a good thing for everyone that you are retired.

edit to add: When a LEO violates the trust given him/her it undermines the institution of our criminal justice system. Citizens must have confidence that LEO’s will not abuse the power we give them and always be truthful about the circumstances they are involved in. Once that trust is violated by a few, it is very difficult to regain that trust by the many.

peace to you

 

[Alcott]

Black Drivers Make up Majority of Minneapolis Police Searches During Routine Traffic Stops

It's black drivers that are doing the majority of those searches? Who'd have known?

 

[Reynolds]

I repeated what you said in post #42. The only mistake made was you posting in a public forum your racially biased practice of searching the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they were rude to you during traffic stops.

As I stated before, it is a good thing for everyone that you are retired.

edit to add: When a LEO violates the trust given him/her it undermines the institution of our criminal justice system. Citizens must have confidence that LEO’s will not abuse the power we give them and always be truthful about the circumstances they are involved in. Once that trust is violated by a few, it is very difficult to regain that trust by the many.

peace to you

You made assumptions that go far past what was said. No vehicle was illegally searched. No vehicle was searched based on racial bias. No vehicle was searched based on rudeness. To contend it was is false witness. It is also false witness to contend a generalization of observed past behavior is universal or is racially based.

 

[canadyjd]

You made assumptions that go far past what was said. No vehicle was illegally searched. No vehicle was searched based on racial bias. No vehicle was searched based on rudeness. To contend it was is false witness. It is also false witness to contend a generalization of observed past behavior is universal or is racially based.

Post #42. You said it, now you own it.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Post #42. You said it, now you own it.

peace to you

I fully own post 42. What you are failing to understand is that the "rudeness" as you put it, was not ever a reason for the search. It is an example of non-cooperation that often necessitated a search to conclude the investigation.

I will give you an example of two stops. Both drivers were same race.

Stop 1: Stop sign violation. Upon approaching vehicle and interacting with driver, observe shake on passenger seat and detect odor of burned marijuanna.
Ask driver, where you been tonight. Driver says "at the club." Few more raport building questions. Then ask driver if any Marijuanna is in car. Driver says "Nah man, but my bro did bun one when he was riding with me earlier tonight " Through the entire action, officer is satisfied that no significant crime is being committed and releases driver with stop sign ticket and a warning about marijuanna use.

Driver 2. Stopped for noise ordinance violation. Same circumstances. Approach vehicle. Smell burned marijuanna. See shake on the console and passenger seat. Ask driver where he has been tonight. Answer is "F... You. I aint got to tell you s.. ".
What do you think happens? Officer has visible marijuanna in car with no explanation available. Officer has plain smell of marijuanna with no explanation available. Officer must further investigate. Investigation which includes search results in arrest for Loud Music noise ordinance violation, Possession of Marijuanna, Dui Marijuanna.

Both are same race.

 

[Salty]

Reynolds, why are you trying to confuse people with the facts......

 

[Reynolds]

Reynolds, why are you trying to confuse people with the facts......

Dont know. Maybe I should stop. ( Lol)

 

[Salty]

Dont know. Maybe I should stop. ( Lol)

If you dont, I might give you a ticket!

 

[just-want-peace]

A common malady, though NEVER so stated - "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts!"

 

[canadyjd]

I fully own post 42. What you are failing to understand is that the "rudeness" as you put it, was not ever a reason for the search. It is an example of non-cooperation that often necessitated a search to conclude the investigation.....

So, “rudeness” is not the reason for the search, but it is an example of non-cooperation that often necessitated a search to conclude the investigation.....?

I’m sure that sounds like a distinction to you, but it really isn’t.

I’m going to address your examples.

What you stated was that if you stopped a vehicle where evidence of a crime (marijuana use) has been committed, whether or not you search the vehicle depends on the cooperation of the occupants.

That is poor police work, in my opinion. If you have PC to search the vehicle (smell of marijuana) then search the vehicle. If you don’t find anything, then accept the explanation or give them a break.

We are not going to change each other’s opinions.

Thanks for the conversation.

peace to you