Comments on: Denard’s Supporters Speak Out On Racial Profiling Experiences at Commission Meeting

By: Bo

Bo — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:42:48 +0000

Thanks – I appreciate your point of view. I would only add that the question of whether or not he was detained is not so cut and dry, but I won’t pretend to be a constitutional scholar if you’ll make the same concession. The cops are precise in their choice of the word “contact” because it is legally different from “detention”, and their position is that he was always free to go.

I also never denied the existence of racial bias or profiling. I know that it is real and suspect that this type of discussion is helpful whether or not I agree with your interpretation of the Denard situation. I just personally don’t see it in this case, but that has not prevented you from conveniently assigning me to my own group (“people like Bo”), which sounds like a pretty awful bunch.

You all keep telling me to re-read the report. Well, since the report states that he was not detained or profiled I assume you want me to keep re-reading it until I come to a different conclusion than the author. Having made no progress in that direction, I think I’m going to bow out now. Sorry for being difficult.

By: immodest proposal

immodest proposal — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:47:48 +0000

indeed. the ultimate irony of this thread is that the only person to accept the reality of privilege is a (self-described) person of color. maybe little shop of stories needs to stock up on some tim wise books.

By: Daydreamer

Daydreamer — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:41:57 +0000

Technically when your eyes are open, and you’re walking, this could be looking around so… It was also strange that the officer couldn’t remember if he told him he was free to go or not, or he could not go until he produced ID. What if he would not have had any identification on him that day, this story would probably be a lot more involved than it is now. When I go for a walk unless I know I’m going to buy something, I usually don’t bring my wallet.

By: DawgFan

DawgFan — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:16:46 +0000

“And with everything you said DawgFan, the police, then, should have attributed some of the reasoning for Mr. Denard’s detainment to his skin color. ”

I doubt the lawyers would let them. CYA.

By: DawgFan

DawgFan — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:08:55 +0000

“Doesn’t seem to make sense seeing as how, after all of this, Mr. Denard was in fact the owner of the house and wasn’t out of town”

That is completely irrelevant. That is exactly what the police were trying to determine. If he wasn’t the owner or an invited guest, you would have a very different opinion about this.

By: DawgFan

DawgFan — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:03:03 +0000

brianc, like I said, this is subjective. I read in one of the reports that burglars often only take cash, jewelry, etc. so they can stash it in their pocket and walk down the street like nothing happened. My neighbor in my old hood got broken into and nothing bigger than an iPad was stolen. When my house was broken into later, the police told me the same thing (although my thieves took the TV). So, the police couldn’t know he wasn’t carrying anything.

By: brianc

brianc — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:59:29 +0000

“But, this isn’t a checklist and you can’t strike them one by one as you appear to be doing.”

They all add up to very little, especially if you factor in the mitigating elements: his age, the fact that he wasn’t carrying any property, wasn’t fleeing or evading.

By: DawgFan

DawgFan — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:52:09 +0000

I think we can all agree that any of the factors (gloves, shifting jacket, etc.) individually don’t justify further investigaion. But, this isn’t a checklist and you can’t strike them one by one as you appear to be doing. You have to look at all of them together, and as I stated below, this is subjective. And, no she didn’t know that the house was empty, but there wasn’t a car in the driveway. Even evaluating this factor individualy, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume no one was at home.