Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Frankly, it sounds like it was a desperation PR measure, to me, rather than something they thought would actually yield any results.
|
I disagree. I think the results they are looking for could come in a few ways. (1) There are enough black people out there that apparently fit what sounds like a very generic description, that they can't or don't want to do the footwork on all of them. So, by having them "volunteer" to come in and prove their innocence, they can compile a list of people that is much more manageable. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll get permission to tap these people's phones. But that's not saying much when it comes to how a cop can check you out. Besides, a list of all the black men who don't "cooperate" will come in handy for quite awhile, I'm sure.
(2) "We aren't archiving the dna results." Bull. Shit. It may not be saved for use in court to prove someone guilty. But I'm sure they'll use it when they can to make their police work easier. Just run dna at the scene against what they have on file and voila! Instant suspect. Start building a case after that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And the ACLU is doing the police force's job here - frankly, when you KNOW you are almost certain to be talking to a totally innocent person, I am pretty shocked that the PD themselves weren't making it clear that compliance was not mandatory (to the extent that it would have mattered, them being the cops and all).
|
Shock and awe! The cops aren't doing their job informing people of their rights? Come on.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Particularly given that, in Atticus's article at least, a lot of the cops themselves sounded pretty ambivalent & troubled by the whole thing, too.
|
Link please? I gotta see this.
TM
