Woman Pulled From Car at Gunpoint By Police After Mistaken Flock Alert - Twice (fox6now.com) 143
The police surrounded her car Thursday, "drew their guns, and told her to come out with her hands up," reports a local news station. The police thought they were pulling over a murder suspect, but "It turns out it was a mistake by another department with the Flock license plate reader technology." The black woman says she'd wanted to call her mother, "but I'm like, if I make a sudden move, it's going to be over. It's going to end my life."
And amazingly, the same thing happened Monday, according to the local news report. "Milwaukee police pulled her over with guns drawn. She says officers never explained why, towed her car, and let her go."
She now describes herself as "traumatized," recalling her second detention by police on Thursday. "After they put us in cuffs, they walked us to the car. I'm not knowing what's going on. I'm scared. All you see is people in their cars recording." She now says she's scared to drive her car, and so is her daughter. "Because she doesn't know if the police are going to pull us over and do it again..."
"I haven't been to sleep since this happened. Every time I close my eyes, all I can see is guns."
She wants an apology, since the local police would only say it wasn't their fault, it was the fault of the Milwaukee police department that failed to remove the alert from Flock's system. "Milwaukee police emphasized this was not a Flock camera issue, it was a data entry mistake," according to the local news report. The woman's response?
"Y'all failed. Y'all failed the system. Y'all failed me. Y'all failed everybody."
And amazingly, the same thing happened Monday, according to the local news report. "Milwaukee police pulled her over with guns drawn. She says officers never explained why, towed her car, and let her go."
She now describes herself as "traumatized," recalling her second detention by police on Thursday. "After they put us in cuffs, they walked us to the car. I'm not knowing what's going on. I'm scared. All you see is people in their cars recording." She now says she's scared to drive her car, and so is her daughter. "Because she doesn't know if the police are going to pull us over and do it again..."
"I haven't been to sleep since this happened. Every time I close my eyes, all I can see is guns."
She wants an apology, since the local police would only say it wasn't their fault, it was the fault of the Milwaukee police department that failed to remove the alert from Flock's system. "Milwaukee police emphasized this was not a Flock camera issue, it was a data entry mistake," according to the local news report. The woman's response?
"Y'all failed. Y'all failed the system. Y'all failed me. Y'all failed everybody."
what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
how long will it be until flock “safety” gets someone killed? no doubt they will disclaim all responsibility while wiping the blood from their hands.
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
It accused someone, the company is "it", therefor it is accountable for a false police report and reparations are needed.
This is the insidious two-step.
Flock probably didn't *accuse* anyone. They probably "indicated to law enforcement that further investigation is recommended". Flock gets out of it because it was "simply a recommendation", the PD gets out of it because they were "following standard protocol".
If there were really justice in this world, they would both be facing a $100M lawsuit (paid from the pension fund in the case of the PD), unless they agreed who would accept responsibility as a matter of formal record, in which case, the responsible party pays $100M and the 'whoopsie' side got only $1M...and then let the relationship strain as a result. ...but this is why the two-step exists - it protects both.
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point and I agree in principle.
they would both be facing a $100M lawsuit
$100M? Really?
Btw, if this were china, they have a 99.97% conviction rate. The police arrest someone. They are tortured until they confess [hrw.org]. 3 in 1000 escape prison.
For all its flaws, be thankful that we live in a system that we have. A $100M lawsuit would not make it better, unless most of it went to pay defendants legal fees. We also need way more judges. Like 10x as many judges.
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
> Btw, if this were china,
> For all its flaws, be thankful that we live in a system that we have.
Your system's fucked up and your logic is fucked up too. "It's either China or US" is a false dichotomy. Europe has much better policing and protocols.
China's system is broken, but the US' system is broken too.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes $100 million. Because they won't make that same mistake again.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't sue Flock for accusing someone, you would sue Flock for creating the situation in the first place. Flock either knew or should have known that their alerts were being misinterpreted by Police units, and rather than taking action to reduce the harm, they instead persisted in their course of action.
Mind you, that might not actually be the case, but that's the sort of legal theory you'd use to go after them.
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know for the US but false plate readings by speeding cameras are a common thing. Or even wrong speed reading, sometimes in the news speeds physically impossible with the car involved. You just fight the fine, and win. These are not "false police report" but technical mistakes.
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
It’s about 10x your fake figures. Some excellent data https://policeviolencereport.o... [policeviolencereport.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And it isn't apples-to-apples. Because PoliceViolenceReport is measuring a different *thing*. We're no longer looking at just shootings, but other types of fatal incidents, such as the use of police vehicles.
The Washington Post reviewed shootings of unarmed individuals, and found 40% (!) were ph
Re: what could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
no doubt they will disclaim all responsibility while wiping the blood from their hands.
That's exactly what's happening here.
This is exactly the opposite of what made air travel safe. If a human makes a mistake then there are two problems. Firstly the human's mistake but secondly the systems that allowed the human to make that mistake. If they start claiming it was "not a Flock camera issue" then they aren't going to fix the software which should have had checks to ensure that this mistake didn't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
As the OP said, what's worrying is that a data entry mistake, which will happen, leads to someone's life being endangered.
Re: (Score:2)
Data entry mistakes happen.
That's of course correct. Data entry mistakes happen; the system should be designed to ensure that, when they do happen they don't place someone at risk of death.
That means that, for example, if an entry is made that says that "murder X is known to be driving car with registration Y" then the system checks that car with registration Y actually belongs to murderer X. If it doesn't then the system refuses to put out a bulletin without a warning to protect the actual owner of the car. Alternatively, for exampl
Re:what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing will happen until a politician is mildly inconvenienced.
So there are contingencies for that (Score:2, Flamebait)
So check your bank account if you've got at least 10 million in there you're probably okay. Although you probably need to multiply that by a factor of 10 if you've got the wrong skin color
Re: (Score:2)
I must call B.S. on that.
If a company in the United States collected and sold personal behavioral data to evaluate individuals for employment, housing, credit, or insurance, it would legally qualify as a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and would be subject to federal regulation.
Flock Safety has not registered as a CRA as of the time of this post.
Now, are there other companies which might be using Flock's data and offer a social credit reporting service? Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if Flock buys the data and generates a proprietary score that gives people an idea of your financial means without divulging any of your actual financial details? I'm not saying that Flock does that, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's much better in China where you and I are from. When your social credit score gets too low, we have dead squad vans. We go get you at your house, chemically kill you in the van, then take you straight to the incinerator. Hard to beat that efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You forgot to steal the organs
Free Tibet !
Tiananmen !
What do you mean there's no more USAID money coming?
Damn
Re: what could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Neglected to remove alert (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a fan of Flock at all. But the mistake had nothing to do with Flock. The police failed to remove a suspected plate from the system. Even without Flock, had a cop spotted the car, they would have reacted. And probably in the same way.
Sex/race is irrelevant. And yes, I think she should be compensated in some reasonable way for the mistake, especially since it happened twice (insane).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Without Flock or some other ALPR, they would not have run the plate.
Re: Neglected to remove alert (Score:2)
As I understand from other reading, one law enforcement agency cannot remove or flag the alert of another.
This IS Flock's fault by design. Removing bad data requires multiple agency coordination which is hard and time consuming.
The presumption of guilt remains in Flock systems after a person has been proven innocent. This is not how the justice system is supposed to work.
This is a dangerous design flaw in Flock.
Re: (Score:2)
>"As I understand from other reading, one law enforcement agency cannot remove or flag the alert of another."
If that is true, then that is, indeed, a stupid flaw. I am sure they have some reason for that, but from my view, it makes no sense. Of course, I think that, by design, these over-present, interconnected cameras extremely hostile to our privacy and civil liberties.
The solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Sue Flock out of existence.
One time is a mistake, and an outrage.
Twice is well beyond outrage, and given police's documented problem with itchy trigger fingers, this woman and her family have every reason to be scared.
This couldn't have happened without Flock's involvement, and it demonstrates the risk to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be highly ineffective as it would take years to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The best approach is to use the ballot box and vote the city council members out of office and replace them with someone who will cancel Flock's contract.
A recall election might work in states which allow it, but costs money.
In states with initiative and referendum, a ballot proposition might work if they can completely override the state legislature's attempt to undo it. This costs even more money.
Re: (Score:2)
If a corporation is a "person", then there ought to be jail or a death sentence or for things like this.
This should not be allowed to happen.
Re:Supreme Court (Score:2)
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in
Re: (Score:2)
Even without Flock, had a cop spotted the car, they would have reacted. And probably in the same way.
Right, this is an indictment of policing in America, not Flock.
But since you clearly cannot trust the police, you double cannot trust them with access to Flock.
You cannot keep the police from getting access to Flock, therefore the only reasonable thing to do to Flock is destroy it.
Yes, this is only* because the police are corrupt, but since they are...
* Yeah, and some other people too, this hyperbole is for the purpose of the discussion in scope
Re: (Score:2)
Right, this is an indictment of policing in America, not Flock.
This is an indication of a systemic failure. And a human failure. Both.
But be thankful that you have the system that you have. In China, 99.97% of people arrested are convicted. The police use torture systematically to obtain confessions [hrw.org]. Sometimes female suspects will be imprisoned with known rapists [amnesty.org].
Be thankful that we're even having a discussion about systemic failure with the Flock database error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"You miss the point."
Not really
>"Instead of choosing to depend on a fragile ( FLOCK ) identification system, police depts could choose NOT to use it at all."
The police are absolutely going to use any tool they have access to. The legislators need to be the ones who fix/limit/remove the cameras.
>"Efficiency is the excuse of a tyrant/gestapo agent, not one policing in a free republic."
I agree. And, as I wrote before, I am not a fan of Flock or the surveillance state. These connected spy cameras
Re: Neglected to remove alert (Score:2)
The police are absolutely going to use any tool they have access to. The legislators need to be the ones who fix/limit/remove the cameras.
They will, they won't. Start blaming the fucking tool already because you're stuck with it.
I've worked with monitoring and alerting software of different stripes long enough to see the same pattern, the tool is somehow blameless for data quality issues when we all know damn well the data quality problems can be traced back to UX design of the tool. We're stuck with it anyway and that's the go-to defense. I've seen too many people give software, the tool, a pass because getting accurate data in and maintaini
Re: (Score:2)
These connected spy cameras *ARE* effective at catching criminals.
Are they, though? I really like numbers and evidence. Is there evidence that license-plate readers are effective in catching "criminals"? What kinds of criminals? And how effective? What are the numbers? Is spending money on license-plate readers more effective than spending money elsewhere? What are the overall accuracy rates, including human error and misunderstandings?
"An Evaluation of a Major Expansion in Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Technology [tandfonline.com] (Published online: 06 Mar 2025) examined ALPRs i
Re: Neglected to remove alert (Score:2)
In that sense, Flock is not at fault. I think the issue is that a company is providing a system where abuse and tragic mistakes are predictable and inevitable. The Flock system has the ability to greatly assist law enforcement, which is its intended purpose. Naturally, law enforcement wants this new power, and the company wants to get rich providing it as quickly and broadly as it can. Neither seem very interested in what the unintended consequences will be. Many people find the lack of curiosity and humili
That's not how this works (Score:3)
This is just a fact. If you want to reduce crime you fight it with social solutions like fixing the economy and fixing wealth inequality and more education not by sending more cops to beat the shit out of people.
All more cops do is broken windows policing which is where the cops constantly bust people from
Re: (Score:2)
It is irrelevant in the sense that the data entry mistake, or the Flock plate reading, are not race-related. Plate reader cameras efficiency do not depend on the skin colour of the user. It it was a face recognition system and the system was known to fail more often on certain skin tones, it would be different.
Re: (Score:2)
In the mean time... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an epic waste of their forces and the communities money.
Do we need more evidence? (Score:1)
How such a nightmare can be possible?
They ought to install a Flock at the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
there will then be a good chance of finding some crooks.
Re: They ought to install a Flock at the White Hou (Score:1)
Re:They ought to install a Flock at the White Hous (Score:4, Funny)
there will then be a good chance of finding some crooks.
Nah, they'd probably just bump into Trump and say, "Excuse - I mean pardon - me." /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They ought to install a Flock at the White Hou (Score:2)
I thought federal vehicles didn't have license plates. They're invisible to flock.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought federal vehicles didn't have license plates. They're invisible to flock.
Yes, but no: "Flock Cameras Can Surveil Cars Without License Plates [schneier.com]: "This is from a 2024 company presentation: Officers can also tap into data showing a car’s decals, bumper stickers, back and top racks -- along with temporary and unique state tags. Flock calls it a 'Vehicle Fingerprint' ...."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You will (maybe) see some of them who are originalists it might be harder to be on flock with a license plates as they ride in on horses living out their originalist ideals.
Twice? Try three times (Score:2)
It failed QA
Now the real world test, and it happened twice.
The company should drop the L from their name
Re: (Score:2)
>"It failed QA. Now the real world test, and it happened twice. The company should drop the L from their name"
I hate these cameras for many valid reasons. But they didn't fail. In fact, they worked exactly as designed. And I have no doubt having all those cameras does, indeed, catch more criminals. The questions is do the means justify the ends. (And I think the Flock model is a "no").
The "fault" is the police not clearing the alert. And the other "fault" are the politicians who decided it is OK t
An apology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that. You want a lawsuit. Sue the police departments, sue flock, sue the state. Where is the ACLU?
Interesting who they are quick to defend (Score:3)
I find it fascinating that they are failing to apologize to the people they traumatized, but very quick with the press release that it's "not Flock's fault".
While your chances of being shot by the police are tiny, they are additive the more times you get pulled over in this manner. The press release from the police should have been a mea culpa, a confirmation the error has been corrected, and an apology to the victims whose lives were put in very real danger, not the defense of the massive surveillance system that amplified their error.
Meet the Flockers! (Score:1)
Seriously??? (Score:3)
So a murder suspect can appear in court and explain that someone gave him the wrong photograph, so it's not his fault?
The US, and many other countries, need to put forward a new law -- if an excuse applies to officials, then it applies to the citizenry. This is not because officials don't sometimes need extra freedoms, but because the vast majority of manmade disasters are "perfect storms" and because this case is a perfect illustration of the banality of evil.
Legitimate causes are just that and they won't cause problems. If, indeed, they are truly legitimate. Excuses mean that they knew they were doing wrong but felt that finger-pointing would confuse the issue for long enough for the storm to die down. Innocent people do not make excuses. Innocent people don't need them.
But this isn't something officialdom will ever accept. Nor will they tolerate a loss of power. So you don't take away their power, you merely insist that powers they claim are the same everywhere for everyone, and that the powers they deny are likewise denied to all. The sensible ones will see in seconds precisely where that's going to go and will get rid of the stupid ones very quickly. Not because they're morally better, but because such a rule is highly volatile and self-interest takes on a very different meaning when the consequences are unpredictable.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr: Not an excuse. "Because a computer told me to do it" doesn't cut it. Cops (and everybody else) need to be held responsible for their own actions.
shit (Score:3)
Sue. (Score:2)
She should not accept an apology. She has to sue, both the department as well as Flock.
The only thing that will end this is consequences for the department and Flock.
Go talk to a lawyer they eat stuff like this up.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as first incident could be considered a mistake and perhaps handed by an apology, the second one is clear neglect and should end up in penalty and remedy.
Re: Sue. (Score:2)
There is no right for a "first incident" grace because this is potentially happening to thousands of people and if they all just accept an apology for the "first incident" then Flock keeps getting away with it. Sue immediately.
Sue sue sue (Score:2)
Apologies don't teach lessons. Cash money does though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sue Flock, let them throw the police department under the bus if they fucked up by not removing the incorrect BOLO after the first incident. Sue the police department, win a large settlement (use our president as an example, he believed releasing his tax returns are worth 10 billion dollars in compensation, extrapolate from that) empty their coffers, perhaps get a diplomatic license plate as a good will gesture, making it impossible for the cops to pull over the car unless their get the feds to appr
What if the alerts timed out after a short time (Score:2)
The police department would have to renew it if they wanted to keep it open.
Wrong Customer (Score:2)
The police tactics are all about making sure that no police officer is ever harmed while performing his duty. If that means that innocent people are cuffed, jailed, terrorized, even shot and killed, so be it. No officer was harmed. Perfectly executed.
The tools of the panopticon are inherently racist (Score:2)
And it's no surprise! because just like with Acusensus being used in Mississippi for automated traffic enforcement, or the surveillance dragnet that covered the entirety of Gaza (requiring people to install an IDF tracking app on their phones), or Worldcoin piloting in Kenya among a few other countries, these technologies are tested on more vulnerable populations before being applied to the general public, and having false positives fall on people where they may is the system working as intended.
We already
responsibility (Score:3)
... since the local police would only say it wasn't their fault, it was the fault of the Milwaukee police department that failed to remove the alert from Flock's system.
It became their responsibility when they acted on the data.
Not just Flock (Score:2)
(Also posted to 'Tower Dump' Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional [slashdot.org], because Flock and ALPRs are also mentioned there.)
Flock is not the only Automated License Plate Reader company. This Market Survey Report [dhs.gov] from the US Department of Homeland Security [sic] (June, 2025) lists no fewer than 16 ALPR providers.
Bruce Schneier: "Axon Is Another License Plate Surveillance Company [schneier.com]": "some municipalities, including Denver, Colorado, are ditching their Flock arrays. But keep in mind that if they’re only switching f
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Given she was guilty of Driving While Black, it's somewhat surprising they didn't shoot her during one stop or the other.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
>"Given she was guilty of Driving While Black"
Race has nothing to do with it. She was pulled over because of the plate alert. But nice try.
>"it's somewhat surprising they didn't shoot her during one stop or the other."
Stop being ridiculous. 99.999+% of the time, if a person complies with the officers (like pulling over immediately and following instructions), the interaction will be reasonable. I am NOT saying non-compliance should result in death, but when people choose to do stupid s*** then bad
Re:This didn't have to happen twice (Score:4, Informative)
99.999+% of the time, if a person complies with the officers (like pulling over immediately and following instructions), the interaction will be reasonable.
99.999+% of the time the police have a non violent incident like a broken tail light. In this case they had been told they had a murder suspect. That expectation make the stop much more dangerous than the average.
Re: (Score:3)
>"99.999+% of the time the police have a non violent incident like a broken tail light. In this case they had been told they had a murder suspect. That expectation make the stop much more dangerous than the average."
Absolutely agree. In cases of murder or other violent suspects, the police have to be ready for violence thrown their way. And that does raise the stakes. But even then, if a suspect complies, there is very little danger (even if it is much higher than typical). But when a suspect doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
Police were involved in 1,314 deaths in the United States in 2025, down from 1,383 the year before. Annual totals have exceeded 1,000 throughout the period observed.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
One-third of all Americans killed by strangers are killed by police
https://ks.fd.org/blog/2020/05... [fd.org]
What percentage of police interactions end in injury, or like in this case, trauma?
"At least they didn't die" is not the only metric that should be used to judge the quality of police work, or used to determine the
Re: (Score:1)
I totally agree. However, your data completely ignores if the suspects are being compliant or not. And you know, as well as anyone, those injuries are almost always due to the suspects being non-compliant/hostile/violent/dangerous. There are a lot of violent/horrible/nasty people out there.
In this case, at least the second pull-over was completely avoidable, and based on questionable policies. But she also complied with the police and was fine, other than being inconvenienced/embarrassed/upset. And I t
Re:This didn't have to happen twice (Score:5, Informative)
What I know is that there are too many cases like these:
"Report reveals police issued 71 conflicting commands and impossible orders to Tyre Nichols in 13 minutes"
https://amsterdamnews.com/news... [amsterdamnews.com]
"Langley then ordered Shaver, who was lying prone at Langley's request, to cross his legs. Moments later, he ordered Shaver to push himself "up to a kneeling position". While complying with the order to kneel, Shaver uncrossed his legs and Langley shouted that Shaver needed to keep his legs crossed. Startled, Shaver then put his hands behind his back and was again warned by Langley to keep his hands in the air. Langley yelled at Shaver that if he deviated from police instructions again, they would shoot him. Sergeant Langley told Shaver not to put his hands down for any reason. Shaver said, "Please don't shoot me". Upon being instructed to crawl, Shaver put his hands down and crawled on all fours. While crawling towards the officers, Shaver moved his right hand towards his waistband. Brailsford, who later testified he believed that Shaver was reaching for a weapon, then opened fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver five times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed and may have been attempting to prevent his shorts from slipping down."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Police have often weaponized 'compliance'.
Re: (Score:2)
Any such horrible outcomes are too many.
But that is an extreme anecdote which is extraordinarily rare. There there is no question that the police behavior in that incident is horrible. And in no way would I defend it. But it is not representative of the 99.998% of interactions (or whatever extremely high percent of interactions which have the police using drawn weapons), which do not have such outcomes. It doesn't retort my earlier statement that almost all such bad outcomes are due to non-compliance by
Re: (Score:2)
These were not 'mistakes'; these were practiced actions.
Go look for videos where police are yelling "stop resisting" at suspects before they even move. You'll find a bunch of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Non compliance with a police officer is not a capitol crime. Every cop who shoots an unarmed suspect should be fired at least and put on trial for murder.
Re: (Score:1)
>"Non compliance with a police officer is not a capitol crime."
Nobody said it was. Or did I miss something?
>" Every cop who shoots an unarmed suspect should be fired at least and put on trial for murder."
You are not thinking this through. One, you assume the police can have perfect knowledge, they don't and can't. Two, you assume just because someone is "unarmed" makes them not dangerous, which is untrue. Three, a suspect can easily become armed when trying to reach for an officer's gun, even hols
Re: (Score:2)
> However, your data completely ignores if the suspects are being compliant or not
Then
> due to the suspects being non-compliant/hostile/violent/dangerous
This expansion of non-compliance with violent/dangerous is what makes you a bootlicking fascist.
In a civilized democratic society, non-compliance with a police officer is not an excuse for summary execution. The only case in which it is legitimate for an officer to kill a person is to prevent a loss of life caused by that person's likely actions. No o
Re: (Score:3)
"There are some 50 MILLION interactions with police per year in the USA. Around 800 result in death. That is 0.0016%
And almost all of those are due to non-compliance and/or valid threats made to the police"
Please do everyone a favor and tell that to the POLICE!!
Because they ALL act like every one of those 50 MILLION interactions is actually one of the 800.
Why is there so many more police shootings in America compared to Canada or other advanced nations?
US cops kill about as many as LEO in Mexico and i've be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a law-abiding person, and hang around with law-abiding people, the chances of your interacting with police is extremely low. And if you are compliant on the very rare case of interacting, your chance of having anything bad happen are so small to be almost nothing.
I am pretty old now. I have always lived in cities or large counties and have only encountered police twice in my entire life. Both were while driving. One was for a speeding ticket, and one was a warning for speeding. The encounter
Re: This didn't have to happen twice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"So long as your skin is light enough and you stay in wealthy and middle class areas."
Sorry, I think you are using skin color or area as an excuse for behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in a civilised country, that's the point. In the UK, the moment a police officer does anything illegal, they are no longer acting as a police officer. (The precedent was set when someone was found not guilty of "assault on a police officer" because the police officer was trespassing at the time.) Even if they are acting as a police
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, you MUST obey commands from the police. PERIOD. Even if they are wrong. Even if they are illegal. Your venue for fighting wrong is in the courts, not in the streets.
This is false... but good advice.
You are required by law to comply with all LEGAL ORDERS issued by a police officer. You are not required to comply with illegal orders, or to agree to requests. Only LEGAL ORDERS are required to be followed.
But... refusing an armed and armored assailant with a badge is likely to get you hurt or killed.
The smart thing to do is to comply. It is not worth risking your life and safety. Leave the arguments for your lawyer to make in court.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a law-abiding person, and hang around with law-abiding people, the chances of your interacting with police is extremely low. ... I have always lived in cities or large counties and have only encountered police twice in my entire life.
Your privilege is showing here. Some people don't have those choices. Some people live in neighborhoods where there's gang activity, or high-crime areas. You want to transplant them? And their friends and relatives? Some people have been subjected to stop-and-frisk. Sometimes police question groups of young people hanging around a high school, on the basis that they're probably up to something. Some people, believe it or not, actually live with or in proximity to, ex-cons or parolees.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop being ridiculous. 99.999+% of the time, if a person complies with the officers (like pulling over immediately and following instructions), the interaction will be reasonable. I am NOT saying non-compliance should result in death, but when people choose to do stupid s*** then bad things are much, much more likely to occur.
i disagree. i’ve seen unreasonable stops with my own eyes. there are more “bad apples” than you think and there is no time for their victims to react. cops are lazy and will take a flock flag as gospel rather than do due diligence, as evidenced TWICE in the story. also, getting pulled over with guns drawn is NOT reasonable. but i doubt you will care until it happens to you.
Re: (Score:2)
>"also, getting pulled over with guns drawn is NOT reasonable."
Yes, it is reasonable if they believe the suspect is armed or extremely dangerous. I care about the safety of the police and the public, as I do for the suspect.
>"but i doubt you will care until it happens to you."
Wrongly pulled over? Of course I would care. Just as I care about it happening to that woman or to you or anyone. Look through my previous posts. I even believe she should get an official apology AND reasonable monetary comp
Re: (Score:1)
It only applies to black men.
Re: (Score:3)
It only applies to black men.
Per the statistics, police shoot and kill quite a few white men as well. Nobody gets worked up about those dudes.
OTOH, when you dig into the individual incidents, pretty much all of those dead white men were actively attacking the police, usually with a weapon (), so it's difficult to get to worked up about those deaths. [policeviolencereport.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the idea that black people are disproportionately killed by cops (whether it's true or not) only applies to men. There was a whole big thing about it called BLM.
Re: arson (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Then we'll start using them as target practice. I'm fairly sure most people won't be upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the tweakers and junkies that cameras are full of precious metals.
Re: (Score:2)
Operationally, what she experienced is not distinguishable by multiple counts of assault with deadly weapons, followed by false imprisonment (which, in law, applies for detainment of *any* duration).
All parties conspiring to create this situation should be held responsible (this includes you, Flock); IMNHO, damages should be in at least seven figures. Sovereign immunity should NOT apply.
(Note that for the record, "qualified immunity" is a Constitutional abomination: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: "No Titl