• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU: Black man detained while moving into own Kansas home

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
68,960
Reaction score
22,530
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Associated Press

ACLU: Black man detained while moving into own Kansas home
​

The Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday asked state officials to investigate after a black man was detained by police while moving into his home, then allegedly harassed for weeks and blocked by the police chief from filing a racial bias complaint with the department.

Karle Robinson, a 61-year-old Marine veteran, was held at gunpoint and handcuffed in August as he was carrying a television out of a rented moving van into the home he had bought a month earlier in Tonganoxie, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Kansas City.

“I’d like to see those cops and that chief lose their jobs because this was uncalled for — this is strictly racial profiling,” Robinson told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday.

He added that if he were white “we wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now.”

COMMENT:-

What puzzles me is the fact that the police officer did not know that the percentage of times that a robber is taking stuff INTO the house that they are robbing closely approximates 0.0000000%.
​
 

They were looking to book him under the double secret charge of Black Man Carrying a TV.

From the information we have it does sound like racial profiling. If the facts are correct the officers should be fired. I'm betting they won't be.
 
Police chiefs need to retrain their officers in the ways of the constitution.
 
I'm not seeing any discrimination or inappropriate behavior by the police.

It's not unreasonable to view someone carrying a TV outside at 4am as suspicious and warranting investigation.

It's also not unreasonable for the officer to protect his safety by cuffing the guy and waiting for back up before entering the house to confirm the story.

Once the guy showed the papers the cops released him and apologized for the inconvenience. They even helped the guy carry the TV into his house. They were so racist they apologized and helped the guy. Just think about that and tell me if that sounds like they are racist.

The cops did their job and the guy should appreciate that instead of trying to sue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Risky Thicket said:
They were looking to book him under the double secret charge of Black Man Carrying a TV.

From the information we have it does sound like racial profiling. If the facts are correct the officers should be fired. I'm betting they won't be.
Click to expand...

If you are giving odds in excess of 100 :: 1, I'll consider placing a small bet, say half my lunch money, on them being "fired". At 50 :: 1, I'd consider "disciplined". At 25 :: 1, I'd considered "required to undertake a retraining program".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you are giving odds in excess of 100 :: 1, I'll consider placing a small bet, say half my lunch money, on them being "fired". At 50 :: 1, I'd consider "disciplined". At 25 :: 1, I'd considered "required to undertake a retraining program".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd take the retraining @ 25 :: 1.
 

Since the gentleman was carrying the TV set FROM a moving van INTO a house, exactly what did the police think he was "burglarizing" - the moving van?

Once the police officers had been totally unable to substantiate ANY ACTUAL REASON for detaining and questioning the gentleman, "apologizing" became almost mandatory in order to attempt to head off a possible complaint about their actions.

Would you like to speculate on how dead the gentleman would have been had he NOT "complied" with the "demands of the police officers"?

Would you like to speculate on how dead the gentleman felt he was likely to be if he had NOT "complied" with the "demands of the police officers"?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Yeah, I'd take the retraining @ 25 :: 1.
Click to expand...

Would you take "no further action is deemed necessary because the officer was complying with established departmental policies and procedures in a professional manner" at 1 :: 5?
 
None of which has anything to do with his skin color. He was behaving suspiciously and if he were any other color it would of happened the same way. The guy seems to believe it was because he was black. It was because one could reasonably suspect he was committing a crime.

Did they pull him over earlier because he was black too. If he were white do you think they would of let him drive down the road without his headlights on.

There is nothing in the story that indicates it has anything to do with racism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Would you take "no further action is deemed necessary because the officer was complying with established departmental policies and procedures in a professional manner" at 1 :: 5?
Click to expand...

Most probable outcome so far.
 

Quite right, the police office thought that the person he saw taking things INTO a house was burglarizing it.

Oh sure.

trouble13 said:
Did they pull him over earlier because he was black too. If he were white do you think they would of let him drive down the road without his headlights on.
Click to expand...

No one is complaining about him being stopped because his lights weren't on - not even him.

trouble13 said:
There is nothing in the story that indicates it has anything to do with racism.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, not a single thing. The police stop thousands of people that they see carrying stuff FROM a moving van INTO a house every day.
 

I think what it comes down to is weather or not the cops helped him unload the entire truck or not. :lamo
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since the gentleman was carrying the TV set FROM a moving van INTO a house, exactly what did the police think he was "burglarizing" - the moving van?
Click to expand...

It's reverse burglary....that bastard!
 

Doesn't matter, the cops acted absurdly and had absolutely no reason to detain him. The police acted with willful disregard for our constitutional rights and deserve to be sued, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for being ok with this ridiculous waste of tax dollars.
 
They saw someone moving valuables from a house at 4 am in the morning. Yes I'm sure they encourage that 1000s of times and the majority of them turned out to be an eccentric home owner not a burglary in progress. Furthermore your assuming that the officer knew the items were going from the van into the house and not the other way around.

Absolutely nothing in that story indicates any inappropriate behavior by the police.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Which constitutional right was violated?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 

Not 'from a house' but 'into a house'. There is a big difference.

Do you not think preventing a citizen displays inappropriate behavior even if you disagree with the citizen? Shouldn't they have the right to file a complaint when they feel they were mistreated? To me, that indicates inappropriate behavior.
 
You can shoot a black man lying flat on his back with his hands in the air, 20 feet away, and get acquitted. I’m not holding my breath.
 
I'm not sure if I'm following you but if your asking if that gentleman has the right to file a complaint, yes of course he does.

All I'm saying is nothing in the story is evidence of racism. The police observed suspicious behavior and investigated. They inconveinced the guy but they did not act inappropriately.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
“I just bought this house,” said Robinson, who followed the officer’s order about the TV.

“You just bought this house and you’re moving in at 4 in the morning?” the officer said.

Robinson told the officer he had paperwork inside the home that would prove he was the owner.

The officer asked Robinson to walk toward the house and put his hands on his head. He then handcuffed Robinson.

Once backup arrived, the officer and a second officer entered the home, brought out the paperwork and took the handcuffs off Robinson. The officers helped Robinson carry the TV in the house after he asked them to.

Police told Robinson there had been a string of burglaries in the area. An officer can be heard on the body camera video apologizing to Robinson and saying, “If you look at the situation, I think, I think you get it.” The officers thanked Robinson for his cooperation.
 

It is suspicious to move things into a house?

If he was taking things out of the house at 4 am, sure, but he was moving into the house
 

Part of the complaint alleges they parked outside his house regularly, followed him for miles from his house to the interstate, prevented him from filing a complaint at the police department, and this harassment continued until he called the local paper and they reported on it. So the initial stop is just one element of the complaint. It's in the OP... :roll:
 
trouble13 said:
Which constitutional right was violated?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

unreasonable search and seizure.

They had no reason to handcuff the man, they could have walked in the house with him, no handcuff and got the paperwork, then go on their merry way
 

You missed this part:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…