—one mutually respectful encounter at a time. Young black man stopped by Tucson police. Is armed with handgun. Here’s what happened:
So, I’m driving to my office to turn in my weekly paperwork. A headlight is out. I see a Tucson Police Department squad vehicle turn around and follow me. I’m already preparing for the stop.
The lights go on and I pull over. The officer asks me how I’m doing, and then asks if I have any weapons.
“Yes, sir. I’m a concealed carry permit holder and my weapon is located on my right hip. My wallet is in my back-right pocket.”
The officer explains for his safety and mine, he needs to disarm me for the stop. I understand, and I unlock the vehicle. I explain that I’m running a 7TS ALS holster but from the angle, the second officer can’t unholster it. Lead officer asks me to step out, and I do so slowly. Officer relieves me of my Glock and compliments the X300U I’m running on it. He also sees my military ID and I tell him I’m with the National Guard.
Lead officer points out my registration card is out of date but he knows my registration is up to date. He goes back to run my license. I know he’s got me on at least two infractions. I’m thinking of how to pay them.
Officers return with my Glock in an evidence back, locked and cleared. “Because you were cool with us and didn’t give us grief, I’m just going to leave it at a verbal warning. Get that headlight fixed as soon as possible.”
I smile. “Thank you, sir.”
I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.
Read his Facebook post.
I thought we could use some good news for a change.
I pointed out to Anjin San, one of the few reasonable ones over at you know where, that people of all stripes should follow this general type of behavior pattern. Although he had lead with the usual blacks are discriminated against line, I think he agreed with me. We wouldn’t even be having this debate today if your anecdote was the rule rather than exception. Sure, there would be screw ups, but they would be so few that they’d be real news.
Wouldth that it was that easy. It should be.
You miss, of course, that there are two parties involved here. First, the black man in the piece had to be reasonable. He also had to avoid making a mistake. If he makes a mistake, like scratching an itch w/o thinking, he is dead. The other party, the police, also have to be reasonable. Most are. I would be willing to bet, but we won’t really know for sure, that if those two officers made the stop the guy in Minnesota is still alive. The fact is that some people just shouldn’t be police, and people die when they panic. Remember that the cop who shot the boy in Cleveland had washed out of a his training in another police department.
Your point that this may not be remediable is probably partially true. With better communication and training we should be able to weed out a few of these people. AFAICT, the Cleveland police didn’t know the guy had trouble at another department. However, that will still leave others. If you are correct, and it cannot be fixed, and you are the minority group that gets killed occasionally even when you follow instructions, how should you respond to that?
Steve
Hence my use of the word “mutual”.
Something to remember is that part of the job description of criminal is not cooperating with law enforcement. You cannot expect criminals to be very cooperative, but if you are not very cooperative, you are acting like a criminal.
That is not a reason to lose your life, but for the thug wannabe, a beatdown might help to get your mind right.