Posted on 08/25/2014 6:37:18 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
‘I mean, say the report is wrong...but still, why on earth would they assume a tan Toyota with 4 men should be compared with a burgundy Nissan with a woman and four little kids?!’
Good question. & if asked, not even the police officer would use the idiot defense. I.e.: ‘I pulled a burgundy car over because I thought the witness was so unreliable that when he/she said ‘tan’, he/she really meant ‘burgundy’.
That defense is unworkable b/c the next two questions would be, WHY did you think the witness said ‘tan’ but meant ‘burgundy’, and Did you make any effort to clarify the difference between tan and burgundy?
It’s an unwinnable hole. The only hope is to stop digging.
good for you
Note I didn’t say they mistook the car for beige, just that they assumed the eyewitness was wrong.
Maybe instead of being illiterate or color blind, the cop was given the wrong information.
And apparently you need to drive a car exactly matching that on the police bulletin in order not to be stopped.
Let's see...looking for a tan or beige Toyota full of armed black men...instead stop a burgundy Nissan full of unarmed children...cuff the mother in front of the kids...what could anyone possibly find inflammatory about any of that? </sarcasm>
We might conclude that there is more than one police force in Texas.
In any event , when they are screwing around with this woman then the correct vehicle is getting away.
All or nothing world. Really.
Ok. I think it’s too bad that people post on here and don’t listen to common logic and sense. Everyone is stuck in their own opinion as if they get points for it.
There is no all or nothing world, there is a case of egregious behavior by some out of control cops.
Here is a quote from Fantasywriter’s post.
“Good question. & if asked, not even the police officer would use the idiot defense. I.e.: I pulled a burgundy car over because I thought the witness was so unreliable that when he/she said tan, he/she really meant burgundy.
That defense is unworkable b/c the next two questions would be, WHY did you think the witness said tan but meant burgundy, and Did you make any effort to clarify the difference between tan and burgundy?
Its an unwinnable hole. The only hope is to stop digging.”
Cops wouldn’t even be asked to justify it. You’re grasping at straws.
The idea that a witness could confuse ‘tan’ with ‘burgundy’ is a premise only a clueless person or a troll would champion. You could argue a witness could confuse ‘black’ with ‘white’. Those colors are as similar as ‘tan’ and ‘burgundy’. Nevertheless, some would say you really can confuse the two. The problem is, people who say that are disconnected from reality. In the real world, if a person is unable to differentiate between two diametrically different colors, then nothing else they say can be relied upon. They are simply worthless observers.
You elucidate so well. (is that the right word?? or should I say write word??)
You must be a writer. ....oh wait....
I’m grasping at straws?? I don’t even understand your reasoning, much less agree with it. I THINK you’re defending the cops. I’m not even sure. Do you know that your not making sense, or what?
Thanks! It’s not necessary to be especially lucid in this case, however. It pretty much argues itself. I.e.: if eyewitnesses were *as* unreliable we’re being led to believe, adjustments for that fact would be routine. When a witness reports ‘four armed black men in a beige or tan Toyota’ the dispatcher would rely, ‘BOLO for an unarmed white woman in a black VW’.
But of course that’s not what happens. The witness is given the benefit of the doubt, & cops react accordingly. They may spot suspects that match up on all but one or two points, and check them out.
But a suspect that matches NO points? A single woman in a burgundy Nissan, with young kids in the backseat? This, we are told, is possibly what the witness meant by ‘four armed men in a tan Toyota’? (Not to omit a critical point: all were black. So she did match that one out of five points. As do millions upon millions of other innocent citizens.)
As I said above, this argument is a hole. The only solution is to stop digging.
I can tell you’re not sure. Lack of confidence is a sorry thing to be made so public.
Once again, you miss the mark completely. Ok. I’m done. No use trying to get reasonable logic and sense out of you.
“A third observation: To be a cop in Texas you must be illiterate and color blind to confuse a beige Toyota with a burgundy Nissan.”
Am I the only one reminded of the Dorner hunt idiocy?
“1. A camera on the cop car helps all parties involved.
2. When you obey the cops, and TRULY put your hands up, you won’t get shot. “
Stuff that. Cops need to stop threatening everyone with death all the time. Cops think nothing of pointing guns at people, before any threat has been offered.
The pigs wouldn’t like having guns pointed at them. What makes pigs think we like having guns pointed at us? Especially when cops are hardly experts at handling weapons. Accidents do happen. And then, like the cowards they are, a single accidental discharge causes the rest to just unload like made.
I very much remember pictures from the Boston manhunt, where cops were aiming guns at EVERYONE, no matter how far off the description of the suspect.
"...reports of four black men waving a gun out of a beige or tan-coloured Toyota."
Sounds like they saw four heads in the back seat and weren't taking any chances.
This is the reason for my call to reduce budgets. If the money we spend on LE isn't doing any good, we need to reduce budgets.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.