Stateside California: Pregnant Black Woman Who Refused to Provide Identification Slammed to Ground and Arrested by Barstow Police

Charlena Michelle Cooks

Charlena Michelle Cooks

By Elaine Magliaro

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) obtained a video taken in January outside a school building by a police body camera of an officer “responding to an apparent traffic dispute.” The dispute  was between Charlena Michelle Cooks, who was 8 months pregnant and black, and an unidentified white woman. After arriving on the scene, the officer spoke with the white woman who had called police and had accused Cooks of acting “all crazy.” After examining the woman’s car, the officer said, “I don’t see a crime that has been committed.” After promising the unidentified woman a police report, the police officer headed over and spoke to Cooks.

David Edwards (Raw Story):

Cooks explains that the argument occurred because the woman disagreed with the way she was driving in the parking lot. Cooks also said that the woman frightened her daughter, who was in second grade.

“She called the police for whatever reason, I don’t know,” Cooks says. “Should I feel threatened by her because she’s white? Because she’s white and she’s making threats to me?”

At that point the officer asks for Cooks’ name, but she insists that she does not have to tell him.

The officer responded, “I actually do have the right to ask you for your name.”

Cooks said that she wanted to “make sure” that she had to provide her name to the officer. Then she called someone on her cell phone.

The police officer said that he’d give Cooks “two minutes to verify his right to ask for her identification.” Less than 20 seconds later, however, the officer and a colleague performed a painful wristlock takedown on Cooks. The pregnant woman screamed as she was “forced belly first into the ground.”

Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney for ACLU SoCal “pointed out that Cooks had a right to refuse to show her ID.” Wong said that if a California police officer arrests someone for failure to produce identification, it “would be a wrongful arrest, but it would be an arrest.” She added, “Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can’t just require a person to provide ID for no reason.”

Cooks was charged with resisting arrest. A judge later dismissed the charges.

ACLU SoCal:

The officer can ask, Wong said, but the person can say no. “Officers in California should not be using the obstruction law, Penal Code 148, to arrest someone for failing to provide ID, when they can’t find any other reason to arrest them,” she said.

Cooks’ arrest was captured on the officer’s body camera, and the video shows an interaction between law enforcement and individuals of different races.

Price* asked whether race played a role in the difference in treatment.

“Imagine getting wrestled to the ground and handcuffed in front of your child’s elementary school,” Price said. “Imagine interacting with other parents afterwards. Imagine what kids who saw the incident tell your child. And if you think the whole incident happened because of your race, how does that impact your view of police?”

Price said the public should not have to speculate about the role of race in law enforcement. “We should know,” she said.

(*Jessica Price is a staff attorney for ACLU SoCal.)

David Edwards:

To make matters worse, Cooks was banned from her daughter’s school until the charges were dismissed. She said that she has not decided whether or not she wants to sue the city. But ultimately, her goal is to move out of Barstow as soon as possible.

“I’m still trying to process everything and get in a good state of mind,” she told the Desert Dispatch. “I’m in a very fearful state of mind. Barstow is so small and I used to be comfortable living here. Not anymore. I really felt like after all that happened I had some of my everyday freedoms taken from me.”

ACLU SoCal:

Two bills pending in the legislature, AB 953 and AB 619, would require officers to record data about their stops and uses of force, including the race of the individuals involved, and report that data to the attorney general.

Price said, “We give police a great deal of authority to stop people, to detain them, to search them, even to shoot them…Requiring police to report how they use those powers, in an effort to measure racial disparities and help identify solutions, is a small price to pay for fairer policing.”

David Edwards:

In a separate settlement with ACLU SoCal, the City of Barstow agreed to provide training to its officers after two brothers were arrested for refusing to provide identification. Charges against the brothers were dropped and the city agreed to pay $30,000 in damages.

Barstow Police Department (01/26/15)

SOURCES

Body cam video catches Barstow cops slamming black pregnant woman to ground, letting white woman go free (Raw Story)

City of Barstow and ACLU settlement seeks to end “Stop and Identify” arrests (American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California)

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Constitutional Law, Courts, Equal Rights, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law Enforcement, Local Government, Police, Racism, Short Video, United States and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Stateside California: Pregnant Black Woman Who Refused to Provide Identification Slammed to Ground and Arrested by Barstow Police

  1. blouise says:

    And the identity of the white woman who called the police … the woman who was promised a police report thus whose name must be noted in the police report. Let’s get that and investigate her to see if she is someone who periodically calls police on black people. No reason to protect her from public scrutiny. The police broke the law to satisfy this chick … let’s find out what ties, if any, she has with the city and what proof, other than her white word, she has that the black woman was acting “all crazy”.

  2. randyjet says:

    The legal fact is that you MUST give police your correct name upon request.. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled. End of story. You do not have to provide ID upon request without reason. If the police have reason to suspect you of a crime or are investigating a situation for legitimate law enforcement purposes, THEN you must provide ID.

  3. blouise17 says:

    “The police officer said that he’d give Cooks “two minutes to verify his right to ask for her identification.” … Cooks had a right to refuse to show her ID. … judge later dismissed the charges.”

    End of story.

    Now, let’s have the name of the white woman and the proof to back up her accusations that the black woman was acting “all crazy”.

    • randyjet says:

      At that point the officer asks for Cooks’ name, but she insists that she does not have to tell him.

      The officer responded, “I actually do have the right to ask you for your name.”

      Cooks said that she wanted to “make sure” that she had to provide her name to the officer. Then she called someone on her cell phone.

      Too bad that you like to take things out of context and distort what was said. The cop misspoke when he said he would give her a couple of minutes to find out if she had to give ID. Since the woman broke the law by refusing to give her name, the time limit is void. She needed to be arrested. Insisting that you do not have to give your name to the police simply makes law enforcement impossible. That is why the SCOTUS ruled the way they did. At least in this case they used common sense and the law.

  4. Elaine M. says:

    If police ask, do you have to give out your name?
    September 19, 2010
    |By Martin E. Comas, Orlando Sentinel
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-19/features/os-law-police-give-your-name-20100919_1_police-officer-janet-lovett-lake-county-jail

    Excerpt:
    Janet Lovett’s troubles started last April when she took her 7-year-old son to the Tavares Splash Park.

    She kicked off her shoes and jumped in to play with her boy. But after her T-shirt and bra became soaked, some parents complained to a park employee that the somewhat transparent shirt was “offensive.” Police were called and an officer asked Lovett for identification. Lovett said she didn’t have it. When the officer asked Lovett for her name two more times, she became upset and eventually gave only her first name.

    The officer warned she would be arrested for not giving her full name. Lovett questioned why she needed to give out that information if she didn’t commit a crime. The officer then slapped handcuffs on Lovett and drove her to the Lake County Jail, where she was booked for obstructing an officer without violence.

    Still, her arrest raises the issue of when a person is required to give his name at the request of a law officer. It depends, legal experts say, on why or when an officer is asking for it and on whether the person is being detained, arrested or simply having a casual conversation with an officer. Motor-vehicle drivers are required by Florida law to show a drivers license, regardless.

    “The important question is if you’re free to leave,” said Jay Rorty, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Criminal Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz, Calif. “People have to know — and they are free to ask — whether they are being detained or whether they have the right to leave.”…

    ‘Absolute right to walk away’

    In the case regarding Lovett and her trip to the Tavares Splash Park, the 36-year-old Eustis homemaker recently filed a notice with the city that she intends to sue the city for malicious prosecution, false arrest, battery and violation of her civil rights.

    Her attorney, Howard Marks of Winter Park, said an individual has the “absolute right to walk away and refuse any communication” during a casual conversation with an officer. An officer would have to have a reason to detain someone and ask for identification. And Lovett never broke any laws, he said.

    “They have to have some reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being committed,” Marks said. “And there was none of that here, because she [Lovett] never committed nor was there any belief she had even committed a crime.”

    • randyjet says:

      She was in violation of indecent exposure which is why the cop was called. This was not a casual conversation since the cop had been called JUST for HER. He was not just walking around the park asking peoples names. Let’s use some common sense folks.

  5. blouise says:

    Too bad that you like to take things out of context and distort what was said. Randyjet

    Oh really? I quoted directly from the officer’s spoken words … they were in quotes so exactly how was that out of context? Your interpretation is that he misspoke so … the distortion was his, not mine. Did he also misthrow the pregnant woman on the ground for refusing to give him her ID? What a guy! Law enforcement is so hard, what’s a frustrated cop to do especially when faced with someone, and here I’ll quote you directly because your words define you, “She needed to be arrested.”

    Why do you think the judge dismissed the charges? Another mis again … as in mistake. Definitely doesn’t know his SCOTUS stuff does he?

    “She needed to be arrested.” Well, of course she did. The white woman reported her and she refused to show the misspeaking cop her ID. Ever hear the term “white fragility”?

  6. Elaine M. says:

    MOM SUING AFTER WET T-SHIRT LEADS TO ARREST AT FLA. SPLASH PARK
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20a_1281405118

    AOL News (Aug. 5) — A central Florida woman who was arrested after her shirt got wet at a kiddie splash park in Tavares is suing the city for violating her rights, the woman’s attorney told AOL News.

    “We are trying to vindicate her [and] establish [that] what was done to her was unconstitutional and wrong,” said civil rights attorney Howard S. Marks.

    The incident that provoked the lawsuit occurred in April when Janet Lovett and her husband took their 7-year-old son, who is autistic, to the Children’s Splash Park in Tavares. While she was in the park, Lovett was splashed by water, which soaked the front of her white T-shirt and made her padded bra visible.

    Janet Lovett’s lawyer said the Florida woman is suing the city of Tavares for violating her rights because she was arrested after her shirt got wet at a kiddie splash park there.
    “She was ultimately approached by an individual [who] professed to be a city employee and [told] she was not appropriately dressed for the park,” Marks said. “[He told her] she would have to change into a bathing suit or some other clothing.”

    Marks said his client left her husband with their child, put a towel over her shoulders and walked out of the city-owned park. She was planning on going home to get a bathing suit when she was approached in the parking lot by a police officer.

    “[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett’s name in a database,” Marks said.

    Lovett, a Peruvian native who was granted American citizenship in January, speaks English, albeit “not perfectly,” Marks said. She said she explained the situation to the officer and requested to speak with her husband. The officer allegedly denied that request and asked Lovett to produce her identification. She had none with her and told the officer it was in her car.

    “I started shaking. I [felt] nervous. My son was inside [the] park with [my] husband. I was alone,” Lovett said in an interview with ABC-affiliate WFTV. “[I was] very scared. I [had] never been arrested before.”

    A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

    A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

    “[The officer] took my client’s arms and twisted them behind her back after handcuffing her,” Marks said. “That caused some bruises to her arms and her hands. [She was] then escorted into the back of a patrol car and taken to jail.”

    Lovett sat in jail for about five hours before her husband could arrange to pay her $1,500 bond. The state attorney later dropped the charges without explanation.

    “Legally, under the constitution of the state of Florida and the U.S., it is our position that Mrs. Lovett did not have to provide any identification information, but she never refused to do so,” Marks said. “Obviously, [police] have a right to investigate crimes if there is a reason to believe somebody committed a crime, but there was no crime here.”

  7. blouise17 says:

    BTW randyjet … I live in Cleveland. We’ve got your kind of cops all over the place here. They even shoot people who are already dead … 15 times while standing on the hood of the dead people’s car. You’d love it! That cop got off too because the prosecutors couldn’t prove that any of his 15 bullets actually caused the deaths of the two unarmed black people who were shot 137 times.

    It’s so frustrating when a car backfires … what’s a cop to do? In Cleveland our cops figure a backfire is a shot so they shoot back. You’d like it here.

  8. pete says:

    “She was in violation of indecent exposure which is why the cop was called.”
    ==========================
    From the Orlando Sentinal article

    “The officer then slapped handcuffs on Lovett and drove her to the Lake County Jail, where she was booked for obstructing an officer without violence.”

    Yet she was never charged for indecent exposure.

    I’ve been through Tavares. Some of the people are very nice, others are grumpy retirees mad at anyone under 55 and just looking for the chance to be offended.

  9. bettykath says:

    I hope she sues for wrongful arrest, battery, emotional distress. The money would be helpful for her treatment for PTSD. Let’s hope she doesn’t need it for harm to her fetus. Cop said there was no crime committed, so he was totally in the wrong for charging her with resisting arrest,since no arrest was appropriate. If not fired, then some serious remedial training is needed that includes 20-seconds-is-not-2-minutes,, that the need for a wrist-lock stops once the cuffs are on. Oh, yes, they need to know that a refusal to provide ID is not cause for a take down. It 2 cops can’t put cuffs on her without throwing her down, they need remedial work on how to put cuffs on someone who is standing. The force was because she was dared, DARED, to question their right to do whatever they wanted.

  10. Mike Spindell says:

    “As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

    “[The officer] took my client’s arms and twisted them behind her back after handcuffing her,” Marks said. “That caused some bruises to her arms and her hands. [She was] then escorted into the back of a patrol car and taken to jail.”

    Lovett sat in jail for about five hours before her husband could arrange to pay her $1,500 bond. The state attorney later dropped the charges without explanation.”

    Let’s forget race for a minute and just look at the facts presented. I’ve been handcuffed. With someone not resisting, it doesn’t have to be painful. That this arrest for no good reason, was carried out with a degree of brutality that was not needed, speaks to me of anger and sadism on the part of the policemen and that should be impermissible. Our police have gotten out of control and their sense of entitlement has gone far towards making them the gestapo among us

  11. bettykath says:

    Because she dared, not because she was dared

  12. bettykath says:

    Anonymous white woman absolutely oozed white privilege and entitlement.

  13. blouise says:

    Abuse of power, plain and simple.

  14. beverlykline says:

    I firmly believe that bettykath was correct on only one of her two comments. First, the law enforcement officers of our great nation have a thankless, life threatening and very challenging job. To respect them and try to help them is (or should be) a citizen’s civic duty. They are only human beings and are not ‘perfect’. For an intelligent person in control of their emotions this “truth should be SELF EVIDENT!! Here bettykath was right = I personally have not ‘dared’ to question a law enforcement officer. Nor have I or will I deride or challenge a peace officer in the performance of their duties. Nor have I attempted to make their job more difficult than it need be. I also have never attempted to take a bone out of a strange dog’s mouth. Thus I have never been handcuffed by a peace officer nor bitten by any dog.
    I was blessed to have been raised by two loving, god fearing, respectable, intelligent parents with a large dose of common sense and self control. It is shameful that we live in a world where the above upbringing is NOT the norm. It is a lamentable fact that ALL unborn children still have NO choice or say into what environment they are forced to grow up. Not all children are created equally. Take it upon yourselves to either thank your parents or to learn from their mistakes and give your children a fair start in life!!
    It is regarding the paragraph above that I firmly feel my perception is that bettykath is correctly wrong! It is bettykath’s perception of the arrest tape that shows our imperfect human ability to all have personal BIAS predicated upon how each one of us was reared. Where bettykath saw on the officer cam — “white privilege and entitlement” — I saw the opposite. What I saw was a young, petite white woman who could have easily been physically TERRIFIED by a woman who appears to me to be nearly twice her size and strength. In my viewing of the tape bettykath’s “white privileged” young lady did not appear to me to possess an ‘aggressor’ personality when talking to the officers.. Also, I saw a composed little woman who talked directly to the police officer about what she had experienced. bettykath testified she only saw “white privilege and entitlement”. BULLY I say.
    I saw a lady who testified to a peace officer that she had ‘HIDDEN’ in her car while she perceived she was being attacked. I saw a United States citizen that appeared to not wish to be further bullied and threatened with bodily harm! I saw a brave young woman who spoke up for herself and made a choice to stand up to a real and imposing ‘BULLY’. I feel this small young lady had made a courageous choice to NOT live a life full of fear. From my perspective, I saw her call to the ‘peace officers’ as her right as a U.S. citizen to ask for a peaceful resolution to her cry for JUSTICE! Obviously, bettykath misperceived the lady’s cry for fairness and reason (reporting of wrongful intimidation or as U.S. law calls it = BATTERY) as an abuse of “privilege and entitlement”!!!
    Since a camera was not there to record the actions of the accused – the peace officers were summoned to act in their sworn capacity. They appeared as called to investigate a breach of the peace and liberty so many of our friends and family have fought and died for. Everyone, please view the tape and note that the responding peace officers appear non judgmental and open minded upon reaching the scene. They calmly set about to gather information. Both first listen to one lady who, if my opinion, treated them both with composure and respect. She is cooperative and non-combative. I feel she acted very civilly. Please note in reviewing the tape that both peace officers are trained to assess the demeanor of both parties involved. This is plain old good common sense and shows the officers restraint in rushing to judgment.
    The peace officers then act as most law abiding citizens would want them to. They approached the other party with an open mind. I saw a peace officer that was immediately met with ‘attitude’ and ‘disrespect’. Watch the tape and put yourself in the officers’ shoes. Note the plurality here. Not just one but TWO officers made a judgment call and both made the arrest and cuffing. This is a good training tape because one officer stated to the uncooperative and dismissive woman that she had ‘two minutes’ to make her questioning call. The peace officer should have allowed her the stated time as long as she did not attempt to leave. In the future the officers should have told her that the U.S. supreme court in 2004 had ruled in the officers favor and that they could lawfully detain her for a specified period of time without making an arrest. Being human they reacted as many people would to her disrespectful attitude. I truly feel that if she had acted like the first lady and been even a little cooperative the officers would have been forced to make an impartial ‘no call’ and instructed the women to make up and go their separate ways. “Why can’t we all just get along?”
    Finally, I feel that when the ‘accused imposing bully’ woman threatened to leave that she left the officers little time or choice (another training moment). Please review the tape here. I feel the officers definitely could have been kinder and gentler! Yes, their assessment of the situation should have taken into account the woman’s possible pregnant condition and they should have tried to ask her. Her demeanor does not appear to be that of a fragile, careful pregnant woman. If police are truly trained to ‘take control of a situation ‘ before it can escalate then I feel they both came to the same conclusion. They were ‘forced’ to make an accelerated call given the facts presented to them and the large woman’s hostile attitude. Who else among us feels that the officers detained the REAL bully here. In my eyes her belligerent demeanor and resistant behavior demanded the officers act as they had been trained to act. Why whack a beehive with a stick and then become surprised when you get stung? Forrest Gump had a saying for this behavior. Perhaps our schools should be allowed to teach proper manners, behavior and restraint. Or perhaps they are trying to but other powers prevent them from teaching ‘LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES’! Do you feel that it is unfair that peace officers and prisons ultimately end up having to teach these social skills! When I was disrespectful Sister Mary taught me manners with a ruler… and… my parents defended her and punished me (not her)! What a concept? Perhaps this is a reason why I have never felt the sting of any handcuffs.
    bettykath obviously thinks that my ‘perception’ is skewed and hers is the correct and proper version. She criticizes the peace officers in their job performance. I feel that she has her right to her point of view. Sister Mary obviously did not have a hand in shaping her respect for authority. Our different perceptions show that both she and I are ultimately the products of our environment. I fear that if we (all U.S. citizens) fail to realize our differences in the ‘melting pot’ of our country then Martin Luther King’s dream will grow constantly more distant and elusive. My perception is that wrong person in the police tape is guilty of being labeled ‘PRIVILEGED and FULL of ENTITLEMENT’. Some person (or group’s) attitudes (as well as their actions) scream that they are ‘above the law’ and are ‘ENTITLED’.
    Good parents can make or break a child. I feel that the first and most important responsibility starts with the parents (hopefully plural say the scientists). Then comes the ‘village’ that helps raise the child. Then comes the school. Too many are putting way too much pressure on the school system to make up for what is lacking in the home and village. What say you bettykath, Spike and Jesse? Lets roll. Set a positive example!
    Lastly, I praise the fearless peace officers in performing their duty despite the knowledge that all of their interactions with certain citizens of our great nation will result in each and every one of these interactions becoming scrutinized. They labor under a spotlight (microscope) of biased perception. I fear that, for the near future, the majority of the well-meaning peace officers will be placed under unfair and unnecessary scrutiny. I for one want them to know that most of us citizens truly appreciate and thank them for all they do to protect us and keep us free. Please take a moment and thank an officer today.They need our support and cooperation now more that ever. This is one of ‘my’ DREAMS.

  15. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Did you hear the officer’s retelling of the tale to his supervisor? The officer told his supervisor it was road rage indicating he bought the white woman’s story. He had no proof. The white woman gave no proof other than her word. (I wonder why he never considered that the white woman’s horn honking could have been rage induced. Oh yeah, she’s white so that just isn’t possible.)

    But then, oh dear, charges were dismissed. Poor officer, poor white woman … black woman got off. And now the ACLU could tie them up in civil court for years. White woman will have to give numerous depositions which means she’ll need a lawyer and will probably have to take time off from work. She’ll lose money and have to pay out a lot of money to make sure she’s got adequate legal representation. Hopefully she’ll have enough left for the hair salon considering that her scared little white self has now gone viral.

    Everything has worked out just fine and I do believe the black woman will have all the money she needs to move.

    White fragility is getting costly.

    • randyjet says:

      blouise, I am an old civil rights activist and have fought against the Houston Police Dept, and I saw nothing in that tape that indicates anything other than your bias against cops and white folks. I have been arrested so I know what it is like to be on the other side too. I have also had very bad experiences with the cops, so I am hardly inclined to be knee jerk cop supporter.

      The tape shows the cops were simply going to make a report and said that no crime had been committed. Then they went to get the other woman’s story. She told her story, and then refused to tell her name. The cop was very even about the FACT that she does have to give her name and waited. She then tried to leave which is the reason the cops took some action. That she refused to follow the law, and then tried to leave gave the cops all the reason to arrest her. She then compounds her situation by resisting arrest. So given her demeanor, actions, and the FACT that the white woman pointed out an object that had been thrown at her car, makes the white woman FAR more credible than the other one. The black woman would have been on her way with nothing done at all if she had not figuratively spit in the cops faces and told them what they could or could not do. Just what would you have the cops do when a person refuses to follow the law and simple common decency? Simply say, OH you are black or white and thus it is OK to not follow a legal, reasonable order?

      Good luck on getting the ACLU to file any lawsuit on this one or any attorney. I had a good friend of mine illegally arrested by an airport cop who exceeded his authority, and the cop also committed a Federal CRIME, yet he found it very hard to get an attorney to file a suit against the cop and the city. He gave up on it, though John is too easy going and did not push hard enough and follow my advice. All the charges against him were dismissed on the initial arrest, though he did have to go to court a number of times. My advice was to go to the US attorney in San Antonio and demand the cop be arrested and charged, and if they did not act, go to the Congressman from the district and raise holy hell in public and with aviation groups. Judging from this tape, the woman has no case at all and I doubt any jury would award anything. I know if I were on such a jury, I would award courts costs to the defendant for the trouble.

  16. bettykath says:

    I heard the officer being very nice to the white woman, didn’t even ask her name. I also heard officer being aggressive to the Black woman in insisting on having her name, even though he already had determined that there was NO crime. His report should have included the names of both women or neither. White woman got her privilege, the Black woman got an arrest.

    • randyjet says:

      betty, You missed a number of things. First off the white woman stayed in her car and simply honked her horn. The black woman got out of her car. Thus a woman sitting in a car honking a horn is hardly a threat. The cop ONLY got aggressive AFTER the black woman told the cop what he could or could not do. He was very even and did not get upset, until she started to leave too. Hint to readers. You DO have to tell a cop your name if you are involved in an incident, and you DO have to provide a drivers license if you have been driving and a cop wants to see it. The woman was clearly resisting arrest and did not put her hands behind her to be cuffed. When I was arrested, I did as I was told and did not resist. Thus I did not get thrown to the ground or forcibly cuffed. They DO have the right to arrest you, even if charges are later dropped. In this case, the attorneys obviously felt the crime was not worth prosecuting since it was so petty.

  17. bettykath says:

    It probably was road rage, the white woman’s. She was upset because of her perception that the roadway was all hers. The Black woman was upset that white woman scared her young daughter. Wonder how that happened? Maybe because the white woman wasn’t all that calm and reasonable?

  18. blouise says:

    It was a school parking lot and she, the white woman, worked there so naturally it was more hers than some black woman’s. The black woman was waiting on the sidewalk to talk to the police. She had even moved her car away from the white woman. She wasn’t hiding or even trying to drive away. I particularly noticed the way the cop kept trying to cover his ass while throwing the pregnant woman around by asking over and over, “Why are you resisting?” Slam. “Why are you resisting?” Slam. Me thinks he was speaking for the benefit of his bodycam foolishly not realizing that one picture negates a thousand words.

    That’s okay … he’s gone viral too. Like the white woman who got the whole thing started … nowhere to hide.

  19. gbk says:

    Same as it ever was.

  20. bettykath says:

    Actually, randyjet, in CA you do NOT have to give your name. I didn’t see the woman attempt to leave, she was trying to hear the person at the other end of the phone. How do you know the white woman didn’t get out of her car? Of course, the Black woman got out of her car. Her daughter was scared and had to go into the school, under the circumstances, the safest place for her to be. Why didn’t the cop ask for the name of the white lady. What kind of report with only one name on it when two people are in disagreement. I’ve been asked for my information when a jerk called the cops because my bumper bumped his (very gently) when I was parking. No one was in his car. Cop apologized to me. He was required to write a report and needed the names of BOTH parties. Why did white woman not have to identify herself?

    • randyjet says:

      betty, I find it amazing that you could ask such a dumb question. You also refused to answer my question as to what the cops should do when she did NOT give her name. In the first place, the white woman was the person who made the 911 call. It is customary to give your name, location, what car you are in, your clothes, etc.. So the cops ALREADY had HER NAME! Hell they probably had her address and arrest record too. The law does not state what order the cops must proceed to get names either, but they DO need both names as you pointed out.

      As for the other mentioned cases they are NOT at all similar since the two brothers were not IDed as crooks or suspects since there were many others in the shop. This is not the case here, since she is partly to the police investigation and as such she must give her true name. As for the crimes she committed. She obviously was resisting arrest. YOU do NOT get to say whether or not the cops may arrest you. That is their prerogative, not yours. If we are to have policing at all, it is a legitimate power. Second, she was attempting to flee the scene without permission from the cops. She had pretty much gotten done with her phone call and was leaving. I am disappointed that she was not charged with willful lying to the police which IS a crime in ALL states. She said her name was Michelle on the tape, and if she has any sense at all, she will forget about a suit since the county has a slam dunk case against her on that one charge alone. The cops DID say in this case that she was under arrest, at which point you MUST comply, or be charged.

  21. Elaine M. says:

    Police video shows ‘horrifying’ arrest of pregnant woman, ACLU says
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/us/barstow-california-police-video-pregnant-woman-arrest/

    Excerpt:
    Barstow police said they are conducting an internal review.

    “Once the department was made aware of the incident, we initiated an internal investigation, and it is ongoing at this time,” Lt. Mike Hunter said Thursday.

    That police investigation started on Tuesday, five days after the ACLU posted the video online and issued a news release about the incident and that of another arrest of two brothers who, like Cooks, declined to identify themselves to police.

    The city agreed to end “stop and identify” arrests and paid a $30,000 settlement to the brothers after an ACLU complaint, according to the civil liberties group and the two brothers.

  22. blouise17 says:

    randyjet,

    You are new to this particular venue/game and know absolutely nothing about me which makes your assumptions about my views on LE and white folks ludicrous.

    Suffice it to say you bought the white woman’s story without any proof other than her word. In that you and the cop in the video are as one. You were also obviously quite taken by the cop’s well chosen bodycam words.

    And, of course, “She needed to be arrested.” came from your pen and needs to be defended. Don’t confuse what passes for intellect in Texas with actual intelligence. For instance, I wasn’t in the video so you couldn’t have seen any bias on my part. (Leave me alone, Gene, he’s responsible for his own sentence structure.)

    As to the ACLU … depositions are preparations/investigations. That’s where white privilege/fragility meets reality and costs money. The city isn’t going to pay for her lawyer and the school isn’t. Of course she can refuse to be deposed and or go it on her own without legal representation or talk to someone like you.

    There will be a settlement. Why do you think the ACLU released the video? In the words of my buddy, Avery Friedman, it’s time to soften up the opposition by letting them know, as publicly as possible, what’s coming. She’s small potatoes and probably doesn’t have anything worth going after but her white privilege sets the stage and is thus crucial to the case.

    The fact that you are blind to all that isn’t the least bit surprising. The world has moved on, darlin’.

    • randyjet says:

      Mike, I am struck by the frenzy to label this a black/white racist thing. It reminds me of the Paul Newman character in the film with Sophia Loren, Lady L in which at the end, the Paul Newman anarchist who is Lady L’s driver remarks that red traffic lights are a tool to oppress the worker. Just because black folks are subject to racism and bad treatment at the hands of the police more than whites, does NOT mean that EVERY incident reflects that. You have left out the initial reason the cops were called, and that is not fair. The white woman reported an assault and battery against her vehicle, which is a crime by the way. So it was not a frivolous call by any standard. The cops find no damage, and say that since they were not witnesses to the event, they can see no crime. So they go to the black woman with the intent of simply getting her story and getting out of there. THAT is not racism. It is hardly kissing the butt of the cops to give your name as you are required to do in that circumstance. When she refuses to give her name, and then LIES, that is a crime on her part. Even the ACLU cannot win a case like this.

      As for the credibility of the two women, I find the white woman is FAR more credible than the black woman since she pointed out an object which had been thrown at her car. Then the black woman refuses to give her name, LIES to the police about her name, resists arrest, and is about as obnoxious as one can be. So just who do you think is more credible? The black woman is a PROVEN liar in this tape. Just because she is black does NOT make her statements more credible nor does it mean that the white woman had made up the whole thing. The only reason for the so called manhandling is that the woman refused to be arrested and resisted. I have been arrested on a number of occasions and in none was I manhandled. I simply let them handcuff me, no problem. This woman did NOT do that. In one case, I had FIVE cops around ready to jump me, so I knew it would be stupid to not comply. I guess this woman decided that the cops were too small for her to respect. It is proven case law that the cops DO have the right to arrest you and you do NOT in most circumstances have the right to resist.

      The judge rightly felt that there was no underlying crime or circumstances important enough for keeping the charges filed against her, and dismissed the case. Now, if she decides to sue, then the DA will have an incentive to file lying to the police charges and send her to prison. She will be convicted too. If such a charge is good enough for Hastert, Libby, and Cisneros to be charged with and convicted, this one will be a slam dunk for her conviction. Think that those guys should have been charged or convicted? I DO.

  23. bigfatmike says:

    “Actually, randyjet, in CA you do NOT have to give your name. I didn’t see the woman attempt to leave, she was trying to hear the person at the other end of the phone.”

    Apparently it is not so clear cut in CA when a citizen has to identify. LA Times had an article in the past couple of days on this incident. I believe it was the ACLU spokes person claimed citizens do not have to identify. A police union spokes person stated citizens have to identify when the officer is investigating an incident.

    It seems to me a key point is when and under what circumstances a citizen is detained.

  24. bigfatmike says:

    For those with an interest here is the LA Times article that presents different views but no clear conclusion regarding the requirement to identify:

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-barstow-police-wrestle-pregnant-woman-20150529-story.html

  25. Harvey says:

    randyjet is a pilot. He can throw people off planes. Such authority must carry over when witnessing women being ‘unruly’.

    Gotta love these guys who have some power.

  26. Harvey says:

    And I love randy’s conclusion that the other woman was a case of ‘indecent exposure’. She was fully clothed. He’s making stuff up. Just like the cops did.

  27. Harvey says:

    Just read more details. The woman was wearing a padded bra. I’m anxious to hear from randy how a padded bra ever allows a view of, or even the outline of, a nipple which I guess would be the indecent part.

    You’re making stuff up, randy.

  28. blouise17 says:

    Only if the state has such a law on their books. That is when the so called Terry Stop (SCOTUS) kicks in. Ohio has had such a law since 2006 so name, address etc but:

    “But the Court clearly limited the application of this new rule by also noting that an officer may not arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The question is, is the request for identity a commonsense inquiry or an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence?”

    And …

    “It is up to each state or municipality to criminalize a suspect’s failure to reveal his or her identity. Such laws may not make it a crime to fail to reveal one’s name during a consensual encounter; to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment there must, at a minimum, be reasonable suspicion of crime afoot by the subject.

    Further, the stop-and-identify law must not be “vague,” according to the Supreme Court. In Kolender it found a California statute unconstitutionally vague because it required the subject to produce “credible and reliable” identification that carried a “reasonable assurance” of reliability, and left it up to the officer to determine what “credible and reliable” and “reasonable assurance” are. Acceptable statutes simply require disclosure and leave it to the subject to decide how to comply.”

    In short said officer actually said he saw no crime and couldn’t get the white woman to say the black woman was driving recklessly. He was thus on shakey ground when asking the black woman for her name. It’s possible that the ACLU is taking aim at California’s statute of criminalizing failure to give name … if California has such a statute.

  29. Mike Spindell says:

    So Randyjet let me get this right. The woman didn’t pay the officer deference, was being arrested without the commission of any crime and you chastise her by not kissing the cops ass? Interpreting that, it seems you give some right to the police that was never originally intended in our Constitution…..the right to be unconditionally obeyed so the police shouldn’t feel that their authority to order citizens around on their whim shouldn’t be diminished. That sounds like a police state context to me..

  30. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Look at the situation this way. Many citizens are uninformed regarding when they must or must not show identification. This may have been one of those times. CopBlock and other such organizations are not doing anyone any favors by teaching people to balk at pulling out an ID. May be OK in some instances but not all instances. What if you are in a situation that calls for ID, but you balk anyway? Hope you like jail food.

    For one thing, if you pull that with the wrong cop, you are likely to get your butt kicked up between your shoulder blades.

    Much is being made of him asking for the lady’s ID and not the white person. Simple logic says somebody has to go first. My question is, did he intend to ask the other person for an ID as soon as he got that one? I guess we will never know.

    Randy is correct in that in a tense situation, the best way to defuse it is to go along if you have few alternatives. Give an LEO some lip, and you might get Officer Nice. Or you may get some half-trained nitwit strutting around, fueled by his testosterone shots. How dangerously do you want to live?

    I know Randy personally. What most don’t know, he is way farther to the Left than almost anyone who visits this site. However, he is not one or two dimensional. He is a real guy who bruises when hit, and bleeds when cut.

    As one who has been consulting with law enforcement for forty years, we try to keep the bad guys weeded out, but some departments condone them. Our local sheriff–or Police Chief–would have fired this guy before the sun set. Other Chiefs would give him a wink and a nudge. When you are stopped, you have the luck of the draw.

  31. blouise says:

    I know Randy personally. What most don’t know, he is way farther to the Left than almost anyone who visits this site. – Chuck

    Oh brother and so what? I still think he’s all wet. “She needed to be arrested.” tells me all I need to know about your buddy.

  32. I am so tired and emotionally wrung out, I had forgotten the 911 angle.

    I have made dozens of 911 calls, and to different centers. I am sure all of them have varied protocols, but I have yet to make a call where I wasn’t grilled. They have my phone number showing up on their computer screen, along with all sorts of information about where I am calling from, whose phone it is, etc. I have yet to get off the phone with them without getting a third degree about name, address, and other identifying information.

    The law already knew a lot about the one white lady. I am sure they would have gotten around to her sooner or later to ask for her driver’s license. The pregnant woman’s biggest mistake was giving the officer some lip. Now, I don’t know anything about either one of them, but looks as if there is plenty of poor judgement to go around. The officer doesn’t get off the hook either. If he were one of mine, the first thing I would want Internal Affairs to do a drug screen for steroids.

  33. blouise17 says:

    betty, I find it amazing that you could ask such a dumb question. You also refused to answer my question as to what the cops should do when she did NOT give her name. – randyjet

    Shame on you bettykath … answer his question RIGHT NOW! Or not … your choice. He doesn’t seem to get that the cop had no reason to ask for Cooks name in the first place and that a judge dismissed the all charges against her. But his tone in addressing you has a certain ring to it.

  34. Bob Kauten says:

    blouise,
    The tone has the usual condescending, arrogant, and disrespectful ring to it. That bell is rung whenever mere mortals fail to show appreciation for the scintillating intellect of the great birdman of Arraganz.
    I myself have deemed myself unworthy to attract his omnipotent gaze, until the great god deigns to recognize us as worthy, and ceases to be such an anus horribilis.
    Oh…dropped an ‘n’ there, didn’t I? Fits better, don’t you think?

  35. Mike Spindell says:

    A hypothetical:

    You’re driving your second grader to school. There is the usual hurry-scurry of frenetic activity associated with the beginning of the school day around most elementary schools all over America. Someone stops short near your car, or conversely you did the stopping short. Perhaps one of the two of you inadvertently cuts the other off. Angry words are exchanged, with your words perhaps being the angriest and most cutting. The other party seething with anger calls the police even though obviously no crime has been committed. [Just as an aside dozens of 911 calls are received every day about things as trivial as my cable tv isn’t working}. Astonished that this verbal exchange has been turned into a police call, you become even more so when the police arrive and question the person making the unnecessary call. The police get the other party’s story, examine the car and assure the other party that no crime has been committed but promise a police report for something that is not worthy of being reported. The officer comes to you and you are astonished when told he needs your name for a report about nothing but an overreaction to angry words. In fact an unnecessary and frivolous use of 911 by the other party, wo for some reason the police want to satisfy. You refuse to give your name, out of frustration no doubt and are told you can have two minutes to verify that you are legally required to give your name. Thirty second later you are arrested, manhandled, handcuffed and put in a police car to be taken to the station for the crime of not telling your name to a police officer investigating a frivolous use of their emergency system.

    Now in this instance the “hypothetical” really happened. The person making the frivolous and frankly ridiculous 911 call, is given anonymity and the other person is abused and arrested. Making a frivolous 911 call can in fact be a crime, as you will clearly see if you google “is making a frivolous 911 call a crime?”. As someone whose life was on the line at least a half a dozen times and actually had 911 emergencies, I feel I have some skin in this game. Being arrested and going being arrested for no crime is NOT a frivolous matter. It is scary, it is painful and can be rather expensive. Some more thoughts on this thread.

    1. To my mind the police acted stupidly and insensitively in this instance because no police report was necessary, except to satisfy the needs of the person making the frivolous 911 call. In other words they felt a need to empower the provocateur, rather than the provoked.

    2. Please don’t give me the nonsense of the fact that regulations required a police report. I don’t care what the “regulations” cited are because we known damn well that regulations are not followed literally tens of thousands times per day by police ALL over this country with no consequence. “Regulations” are most often cited as justifications when unwarranted actions are taken.

    3. The fact that the “smart” thing to do when confronted by a police officers demands is to act passively really means that you never know which cop is going to abuse their authority by mistreating you badly. It is NEVER a justification for police abuse of authority as is is postulated here by Randyjet.

    4. And yes Chuck I know how left wing Randyjet is, perhaps more than most because in my life I’ve hung out with some pretty left wing people myself. Some I liked, some I loathed, but I found that many could be totally wrong in many things and in the process be rather condescending in their manner. Randyjet and I share many radical views, but in this instance we rather strongly disagree and I think he has been annoyingly condescending towards both Blouise and BettyKath.

    5. Then too there is an implication running through this that the “race card” has been played without justification. Let me be clear. Mistreatment of people of color by police is a proven fact of life in this country, open to dispute only by those so blinded by their “White privilege” that they insist on taking each incident of this happening as if it existed out of the context of the whole. As we’ve seen throughout the years of this site this is what is repeated time and again in an attempt to hide the racist reality from view. Were the American system of justice pristine in its dispensations then that would be a fair way to view various instances. The American justice system, however, is corrupt, racist and skewed towards the elite classes and so must be viewed in its larger context.

    6. Finally, I can’t let the following point by Bettykline go unanswered:

    “First, the law enforcement officers of our great nation have a thankless, life threatening and very challenging job. To respect them and try to help them is (or should be) a citizen’s civic duty. They are only human beings and are not ‘perfect’. For an intelligent person in control of their emotions this “truth should be SELF EVIDENT!!”

    No the truth of your statement is Not “SELF EVIDENT”, it is actually untrue. The LEO’s of this nation have very well paying jobs, usually with excellent benefits and retirement plans. Fifty percent of our television shows extol and praise them. AS for them being only “human beings and not perfect” that is nonsensical. They are paid well to be as near perfect in their jobs as they can be, or be accountable. Would we eschew blame for an engineer who was imperfect in his erection of a building that collapses bringing death to its residents. LEO’s carry lethal weaponry and exercise great authority. They need to be held accountable for their actions and not protected from the consequences of those actions.

  36. pete says:

    @2:28 in the video (officer) “I’m going to document her name, probably her story. I’m pretty sure she’s going to give you a story, where, you know, it was your fault and then this and that but we’ll just document that and see where her car is. I’m going to go find out, fair enough? Fair enough? Uh, do you think she was driving recklessly?

    @4:32 the officer asks for the (black) woman’s name. At 4:56 he says he will her two minutes to confirm that he can take her name. She gets on phone to confirm, while she is on the phone he continues to ask for her name. @5:14 she says she is uncomfortable there and tries to move to her right. That is when both officers begin wrestling with her.

    Why was she suddenly uncomfortable? Was it because officer#2 had moved in to the right of officer#1? Remember officer#2, the officer who was content to stand on the other side of the car while officer#1 was talking to the first woman. The second driver had taken her daughter to class and had waited on the sidewalk for the officer to come get her side of the story. Remember, the story where she will say it was the first woman’s fault.

    How can anyone think both party’s were treated equally in this here.

  37. pete says:

    strike “in this” in the last line. sometimes words just appear. damn computer.

  38. elainemag46 says:

    “Then the black woman refuses to give her name, LIES to the police about her name…”

    The black woman said her name was “Michelle.” Her middle name IS Michelle. Maybe she goes by her middle name. I have a male friend whose first name is Leo. I have known him for more than fifty years. I have never heard him use his first name. He always uses his middle name.

  39. bettykath says:

    Mike, Good hypothetical that happened. You conflated bettykath and beverlykline. It was beverlykline who make the remark.

    randyjet, “betty, I find it amazing that you could ask such a dumb question. You also refused to answer my question as to what the cops should do when she did NOT give her name. ”

    I normally don’t respond to condescending b.s. but I’ll make an exception.

    I’m not sure what dumb question you’re referring to since I consider any question I ask to be a good one since I don’t know the answer. Can you answer it?

    As to your question, what should the cops do when she did not give her name, I’ll answer it because I think you really don’t know the answer. They should first have waited while she made her call, especially since he gave her 2 minutes to do so. If she had been told that she had to give her name, she would have. They had an agreement that didn’t have to end in the use of force. Secondly, if she refused at the end of the call, to give her name, the cops should have walked away since no crime was committed and, according to CA law she did NOT have to give her name. Arresting someone for resisting arrest when there is no crime is an abuse of power.

    The ACLU and a private attorney are pursuing a lawsuit.

    • randyjet says:

      betty, I see that you did NOT read my previous answer to your question. Try doing that for a change. I said the white woman called 911, and THUS the police had her name, address, location at the time, the kind of car she was driving, her license number and plates, and probably the name of her first born. So far only a few have bother dealing with the facts of the case instead of invective and supposition. The middle name of the black woman has not been placed in evidence on this site from what I have seen. So I will require some cite or other source rather than taking your words for it. The white woman claimed the black woman HIT her car window with her hand and pointed out the object she threw at her. The reason the cops did nothing was because there was NO physical damage to back up the claim and told her without that, they could file no charges since they did NOT witness the act. It boils down to she said/ she said.

      The FACT is that if the black woman had given her name, all would have gone home with nothing done. Let us diverge from this one incident and say a white guy had grabbed the white woman, and held her down and then let her up. No damage was done, but she called for the cops. The cops show up, and take her story, observe no damage to her or marks, and they go to the guy who says he did nothing at all to her. He refuses to give his name. Should the cops then arrest the guy? Should they let him go if he does not give his name? So as far as the cops can see nothing at all happened and no crime was committed.

  40. bettykath says:

    On the use of middle names. A sister-in-law and a niece use their middle names. I’m still not sure which name of my grandfather is his first name and which his middle name. He was known by only one name but it’s not clear whether it was his first name or his second. Some legal documents show one and other documents show the other as first name.

  41. bettykath says:

    randyjet, ” I find the white woman is FAR more credible than the black woman since she pointed out an object which had been thrown at her car”

    No. She claimed that something was thrown at her car and waved her hand. What was the object? If this were a serious claim she would have picked up the object to show it to the cops. Since she didn’t, I say, “boooogus!” So did the cop.

  42. bettykath says:

    CA law does NOT require that the woman give her name. Cop was rude and unnecessarily aggressive, used excessive force, and made an unlawful arrest.

    • randyjet says:

      betty, Simply saying you do not have to give your name does not cut it. The FACT is that neither you or any other person here has shown a legal precedent that applies to this case. The one incident cited relates to a group of people in a restaurant in which something had been taken. The two guys who refused to give their name were NOT charged or detained or questioned as persons who had done the crime. It was a general group and thus the police did NOT have the right to ask everybody’s name, and thus could NOT arrest them for not giving it. I agree that is right. In this specific case, the black woman IS SPECIFICALLY accused of assault and battery to the car. BIG difference.

      It is too bad the white woman did not go after the black woman after she was arrested. She should have performed a citizens arrest on her in addition to the cops actions. Then she would have to go to court and testify about the assault and let the jury judge, and this tape would have been gold for her in that trial. So far nobody has shown ANY evidence or cite that the black woman’s middle name is Michelle. Thus until such time, I will have to assume that some folks are lying to score some points

  43. Elaine M. says:

    randyjet said: “Let us diverge from this one incident and say a white guy had grabbed the white woman, and held her down and then let her up.”

    Did the black woman touch, grab, or manhandle the white woman? What was her alleged crime? That she threw something at the white woman’s car? What was the object that she allegedly threw? Was it a brick? A piece of cardboard? Did the black woman have a complaint about the white woman too? Was it a she said/the other she said type of incident? Did the officer determine that the black woman had committed a crime? Did the police officers use excessive force in handling this situation? Was there a better way to interact with the black woman? Was there a better way to resolve the problem?

    Too often these days, we see cops resort to using excessive force instead of trying to defuse situations such as this.

  44. pete says:

    These are not my words. I saved this some time ago because I liked what they said and how they said it.
    ===========================

    “We should all, collectively conceptualize the notion that there is no graver offense when it comes to human interaction, than the act of putting your hands on another human being, in aggression.
    No one has the right to commit assault and battery against another human being, especially if there is no immediate danger of grave bodily harm, or in self-defense. And especially, when it comes to police forces, if they find it necessary to use force because of an extreme situation, they must not use unnecessary and excessive force.”

  45. Elaine M. says:

    randyjet said: So far nobody has shown ANY evidence or cite that the black woman’s middle name is Michelle. Thus until such time, I will have to assume that some folks are lying to score some points

    **********

    The first paragraph of my post:

    The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) obtained a video taken in January outside a school building by a police body camera of an officer “responding to an apparent traffic dispute.” The dispute was between Charlena Michelle Cooks, who was 8 months pregnant and black, and an unidentified white woman. After arriving on the scene, the officer spoke with the white woman who had called police and had accused Cooks of acting “all crazy.” After examining the woman’s car, the officer said, “I don’t see a crime that has been committed.” After promising the unidentified woman a police report, the police officer headed over and spoke to Cooks.

    **********

    From the ACLU article that I used for a source:

    In a second incident, Charlena Michelle Cooks, who was eight months pregnant, was handcuffed behind her back and arrested for refusing to show her identification to a Barstow police officer. The arrest occurred just after she had dropped off her daughter, a second-grader, at school.

    **********

    randyjet,

    So…was I lying to score points? Did you read my post? Did you check out either of the sources that I used?

  46. blouise says:

    Ms Cooks is going to be just fine. She stood up for herself, got arrested for it, and will now make a few thousand dollars.

    Barstow Police have decided to conduct an internal investigation. It’s all on their officer’s bodycam but I guess they need help in figuring out what happened.

    The white woman is going to need a lawyer cause it looks like depositions are on the horizon. Get a second job, honey, that decision to call 911 was an expensive one.

  47. randyjet says:

    Elaine, good questions. If you listen to the tape, the white woman states the black woman hit her drivers side window with her hand and then threw something at it, and she pointed out the object to the cops. Despite some folks idea that the woman should have picked up the object, and handed it to the cops, just pointing it out gives her some credibility. One hopes that in a murder situation that person will pick up the murder weapon and hand it to the cops to show she is telling the truth. The object I think was probably cardboard on something that left no mark. That is why the cops said, that unless she wants to make a citizens arrest, without any visible damage, there is no crime that they can see.

    I can see no other way the cops could have acted. After they informed her that she did have to give them her name, she started to leave, and the cops would not let her. At that point, the cops clearly state on the tape, that she is NOW under arrest. At that point a person MUST stop all resistance and follow the instructions of the police, unless you want to be charged with resisting arrest, which is a separate crime. I have been arrested a number of times, and had no problems because I followed their orders. The black woman refused, and the police have the legal right to use ALL the force needed to effect the arrest, but no more. The only way that I can see the cops could have acted was to simply let the black women go without getting her name and blown off the whole thing. I wonder how they would write their report though with no name from the accused. I think that cops supervisor might have had some nasty words about that lapse. I also find it incredible that the woman was that stupid since she had no such “right” and wound up in jail when all she had to do was tell her proper name and she would have been free. Try using some common sense.

  48. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    It’s called projection … denying the existence of unpleasant impulses within oneself, while attributing them to others. Kind of like. claiming that one was arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest. Crazy authoritarians get really pissed when their authority is ignored.

  49. bettykath says:

    I think randyjet has a problem reading or comprehending what he read if he does read. From the article:

    ACLU SoCal: The officer can ask, Wong said, but the person can say no. “Officers in California should not be using the obstruction law, Penal Code 148, to arrest someone for failing to provide ID, when they can’t find any other reason to arrest them,” she said.

    More: Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, spoke with the L.A. Times about when individuals must provide identification to police. Here’s a rundown of the law and the ACLU’s recommendations for people who are asked for their ID.

    Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one?

    No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID.

    Police can always ask for identification, just like they can ask if you’ll step over and answer a few questions, or if they can search your bag or come into your house. But just because they can ask doesn’t mean you have to allow them to see your ID.

    If you don’t want to provide identification, you can politely say you do not want to do so and ask if you are free to go.

    When can police ask for identification?

    If you are driving and are stopped by police, you must provide a drivers license.

    And although California law generally requires that officers release people who are cited for misdemeanors, rather than taking them to jail, it makes an exception if the person cannot provide satisfactory identification. If officers are actually trying to write you a misdemeanor citation, you may have to provide identification or face arrest for the misdemeanor offense.

    If you are a suspect in a crime, do you have to show your identification?

    No.

    If police reasonably suspect you of a crime, they can detain you to investigate that crime. Some states have what are called “Stop and Identify” statutes that require someone suspected of criminal activity to provide identification to police, making refusal a crime. California has no such statute, so if you refuse to provide an ID while police are detaining you, they can’t arrest you just for refusing.

    • randyjet says:

      bettykath, You are missing a BIG difference in what you posted. You do NOT have to provide an ID, but you DO have to give your correct NAME. That is settled SCOTUS rulings.

  50. bettykath says:

    Chuck, “Much is being made of him asking for the lady’s ID and not the white person. Simple logic says somebody has to go first. My question is, did he intend to ask the other person for an ID as soon as he got that one? I guess we will never know. ”

    Yes, someone has to go first. How about the woman he spoke with first? He didn’t ask her to stick around. It’s been suggested that he already had her name, but he didn’t verify it, so maybe the dispatcher got it wrong. I usually spell my very common first and last names because so many people get them wrong. It’s even more likely if the person calling 911 is upset.

  51. Elaine M. says:

    randyjet wrote:

    Elaine, good questions. If you listen to the tape, the white woman states the black woman hit her drivers side window with her hand and then threw something at it, and she pointed out the object to the cops. Despite some folks idea that the woman should have picked up the object, and handed it to the cops, just pointing it out gives her some credibility. One hopes that in a murder situation that person will pick up the murder weapon and hand it to the cops to show she is telling the truth. The object I think was probably cardboard on something that left no mark. That is why the cops said, that unless she wants to make a citizens arrest, without any visible damage, there is no crime that they can see.

    I can see no other way the cops could have acted. After they informed her that she did have to give them her name, she started to leave, and the cops would not let her. At that point, the cops clearly state on the tape, that she is NOW under arrest. At that point a person MUST stop all resistance and follow the instructions of the police, unless you want to be charged with resisting arrest, which is a separate crime. I have been arrested a number of times, and had no problems because I followed their orders. The black woman refused, and the police have the legal right to use ALL the force needed to effect the arrest, but no more. The only way that I can see the cops could have acted was to simply let the black women go without getting her name and blown off the whole thing. I wonder how they would write their report though with no name from the accused. I think that cops supervisor might have had some nasty words about that lapse. I also find it incredible that the woman was that stupid since she had no such “right” and wound up in jail when all she had to do was tell her proper name and she would have been free. Try using some common sense.

    **********

    The officer said it appeared that no crime had been committed. Then why did he need to get the black woman’s name?

    BTW, the white woman said that she works at the school. Maybe she knew the name of the black woman????? Did the officer ask the white woman if she knew the name of the black woman who had thrown something against her car? Could the officer have taken the license plate number of the black woman’s car? I guess the easiest way to get the pregnant black woman’s name was to throw her on the ground, handcuff and arrest her, huh?

    • randyjet says:

      Elaine, The reason the cops needed her name is because they were responding to a 911 call of an assault. The black woman was starting to leave the scene without giving her name. Both actions are NOT legal. Thus the cops telling her clearly that she was now under arrest. Once the cop says that, YOU MUST comply with their orders to effect the arrest. There is no choice on your part. YOU do not decide when or if a cop can arrest you. If that were the case, policing would be impossible. As I have been arrested a number of times, they did not have to throw me down and use force since I complied with their orders. They were real SOBs though when they did other things to make me hurt. When you resist, the cops can use all reasonable force to take you into custody, meaning that they need to put handcuffs on.

      Giving the cops her name would also protect the black woman from later false claims if the white woman decided that she had keyed her car. Then she would have a police report with her name on it and that the cops saw no such damage. We need to use some common sense folks. There is also another misconception I have seen which is that while you do not have to provide an ID, you DO have to give your NAME. They are not one and the same.

  52. bettykath says:

    oh, dear. And now I’m “some folks”. Should I go hide under the bed in shame?

  53. blouise17 says:

    Thus far the majority of the info he’s stated as fact has been wrong. It’s the old “America, love it or leave it” school of thought. When all is said and done it’s just another thinly veiled threat from the authoritarian mind set … Always obey cops or else they’ll hurt you.

  54. I. Annie says:

    Well, after reading this thread, it exceedingly evident that even the most liberal of liberals can be authoritarian and biased. That’s pretty disappointing.

  55. blouise says:

    I guess the easiest way to get the pregnant black woman’s name was to throw her on the ground, handcuff and arrest her, huh? – Elaine

    Sure … the He-Man Hero complex calls for total physical commitment … pregnant lady down and out … He-Man supreme and no brains needed.

  56. blouise17 says:

    Regarding the white woman’s name, I’m sure the cops had it or could get it. What bothers me is the media’s failure to disclose it. They have her picture, they know where she works. She started the whole thing with her 911 call so why isn’t her name in print? She was as much a part of the story as the cop and his victim. Was the media protecting her and if so, why?

  57. bettykath says:

    Poor damsel in distress. Can’t cause her any more distress after saving her from big, scary, pregnant Black woman.

  58. blouise says:

    I suspect, note “suspect”, we are seeing a perfect example of white privilege. The real thing which is so deeply embedded within the psyche that story tellers and their editors/publishers are unaware of its existence within their own thought process. The white woman gets the privilege of protection. If confronted with that possibility, I’m willing to wager there would be a great deal of sputtering and excuse offering and it would be legitimate. The most insidious thing about white privilege is its naturalness. Well intentioned people aren’t even aware of its presence within their thought process. I call them “Poor Paulas” after Paula Deen … clueless.

    That’s why when I see someone like Ms Cooks standing up for herself against the incredible odds of white privilege fortified by a badge and a gun aligned against her, demanding that they remove their hands from her body and screaming as they throw her to the ground, I stand in awe of the righteous anger and independence she shows. Even as they dragged her to the cruiser in handcuffs she loudly maintained her innocence and pleaded for the safety of her unborn child the cops so carelessly endangered and for her Second grader they forced her to abandon in the school building. White privilege on show for all to see and one lone black woman fighting to save herself and her children from its grasping, ugly claws.

  59. Bob Kauten says:

    No need to lift my pretty little middle finger. Authoritarians always make asses of themselves. I sit back and watch the show. They just can’t leave it alone and shut up. Just keep digging.

  60. I. Annie says:

    I’ve seen so many instances in which black women are treated as somehow tougher than white women, not given the same level of consideration, by white males. To fling a pregnant woman to the ground on her belly is beyond disgusting and uncalled for. Then after it’s done the one cop actually asks the other cop if HE’S Ok. Good grief, where was the concern for the pregnant woman and her unborn baby?

  61. bettykath says:

    Her name is Michelle and she gave it. They didn’t ask for id and she didn’t have to give it. She wasn’t attempting to leave. In any case, they didn’t have to throw her down and maintain the painful wrist lock after the cuffs were on. Considering that all charges were dropped, it was a false arrest. Hope she wins her lawsuit.

    • randyjet says:

      Betty I find it hard to believe that you think that is a serious point. So when a person like a hotel clerk asks for your name you think that one name is sufficient. Then you provide NO proof that the woman real name is Michelle since all the items on this threat show NO such name attached to her. The fact that charges were dismissed does not equal false arrest by the way. The tape provides adequate proof of that. Love those body cams!

  62. bettykath says:

    They may have responded to an assault call but they determined that there was no crime. White woman exaggerated. No crime no reason for name or id or arrest.

    • randyjet says:

      The police could find no damage to the car, thus they concluded that THEY could not arrest for assault. You missed the statement the cops made which was that SHE could have made a citizens arrest. The police can only arrest persons for something that THEY see, or find evidence of happening. The white woman could have gone and added to the charges the police filed. For example, a person hits you, and there is no mark or other evidence, you call the cops. Since the cops see no blood or bruise, they cannot make an arrest, but you the victim can. So while the cops did not find visible evidence, it did NOT mean that there was no crime. Then the case would boil down to she said/ she said.

      The case was tossed by the judge because it was such a penny ante case that he did not want to waste time or resources on such a trivial matter. Just as the white woman blew it out of all proportion, but this was CA where they are crazy and love to call the police at the drop of a hat.

  63. blouise says:

    “The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a suspect’s failure to identify himself cannot, on its own, justify an arrest: “the use of Section 148 to arrest a person for refusing to identify herself during a lawful stop violates the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.” … State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General as written in The California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook (CPOLS) which is compiled by the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

  64. bettykath says:

    From the first paragraph in the post: “The dispute was between Charlena Michelle Cooks, who was 8 months pregnant and black, and an unidentified white woman.” It was also repeated by Elaine just for you. And just who was that white woman?

  65. bettykath says:

    Thanks for posting that Blouise. Cop already determined that no crime had been committed so when she balked at giving her name and then gave only her middle name (which may be what she goes by), the cops should have just walked away, filing the report as anonymous women had a spat, no crime, waste of our time, maybe we should charge white woman with making a frivolous 911 call. Oh, no. white woman, privileged, entitled, fragile. Can’t do that.

  66. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    You will note from the video that the white woman also turned and walked away from the cop during their conversation.

    Honestly, it is a pluperfect example of white privilege in action from the beginning all the way through the media’s presentation.

    The excuses and justifications offered sound like the kind of thing one heard from the aristocracy as they bemoaned the rise of the common man and the demise of their privileged status after WWI.

    The thing so many fail to understand is that white privilege is just as prevalent among liberals as it is among conservatives. It’s an expectation, not a prejudice.

  67. bron98 says:

    my momma told me to never hit a woman unless she has a gun pointed at you. I am sure that extends to not throwing pregnant women to the ground. Unless that woman had a gun, that cop was way out of line.

    I would not want a cop on my force who would treat a woman like that, let alone a pregnant woman. What was he thinking? He could have caused her to have a spontaneous abortion.

  68. bron98 says:

    I don’t believe in white privilege. Everyone looks out for their own interests, it is just a fact of life.

    My uncle, a white guy, started a vet practice in New Hampshire back in the early 60’s when there was only 1 other vet in hundreds of square miles. The other vet was white too and he bad mouthed my uncle every chance he got. He didn’t want any competition, he wanted it all for himself.

    Had that other vet been able to use the state to go after my uncle he surely would have. I am sure he dogged my uncle for years and took pot shots whenever he could. Most people are just stupid and greedy.

    People look out for their own interests, black, white, brown, yellow it doesn’t matter, we all try to protect the status quo. Or at least most of us do. Most likely we fear change and the effort it takes to keep moving forward, to evolve to our environment.

    I wonder when people will come to the realization that all of us have something to offer each other, that your success isn’t an impediment to mine, that the pie is always growing and that there is plenty of pie for all of us? When will we start treating people as potential friends, potential customers who benefit us and make our lives better instead of adversaries who take limited resources? I guess part of the problem is that people think resources are limited, they aren’t limited, we have a entire solar system of raw materials.

  69. bettykath says:

    Blouise, “The thing so many fail to understand is that white privilege is just as prevalent among liberals as it is among conservatives. It’s an expectation, not a prejudice.”

    White privilege is something that nearly all white people have (economic class is a complication to a broader generalization). How we handle it matters. You’re right, it’s an expectation of most and their expectations are too frequently met.

  70. bettykath says:

    What happens when African-Americans get so “uppity” as to have some economic gains and the white privilege response. The happenings in Greenwood were not an isolated response.

    excerpt:
    The term “race riot” does not adequately describe the events of May 31—June 1, 1921 in Greenwood, a black neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In fact, the term itself implies that both blacks and whites might be equally to blame for the lawlessness and violence. The historical record documents a sustained and murderous assault on black lives and property. This assault was met by a brave but unsuccessful armed defense of their community by some black World War I veterans and others.

    During the night and day of the riot, deputized whites killed more than 300 African Americans. They looted and burned to the ground 40 square blocks of 1,265 African American homes, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and destroyed 150 businesses. White deputies and members of the National Guard arrested and detained 6,000 black Tulsans who were released only upon being vouched for by a white employer or other white citizen. Nine thousand African Americans were left homeless and lived in tents well into the winter of 1921.

    Like pearls on a string, we can finger the beads of violent and “legal” expulsions of people of color from their land in the nation: The Cherokee Removal and multiple wars against indigenous people, the 1846 U.S. war against Mexico, the Dawes Act, government-sanctioned attacks on Chinese throughout the West, the “race riots” that swept the country starting in 1919, Japanese American internment and the later use of eminent domain for “urban removal.” The list is long.

    http://zinnedproject.org/2013/05/burning-tulsa-the-legacy-of-black-dispossession/

  71. blouise says:

    How we handle it matters. bettykath

    Exactly

  72. pete says:

    blouise

    I was looking up something from the history of Forsyth county Ga. and found this.

    http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/banished/map.html

  73. blouise says:

    pete,

    Thanx

  74. bettykath says:

    “White privilege is something that nearly all white people have (economic class is a complication to a broader generalization).”

    I’m not sure that economic class is a complication. Many poor whites do have an expectation of being treated better than similarly situated A-A and many of them get it, although they are frequently not treated very well. Poor whites are much less likely to be beaten or killed by cops, for example, while we have an epidemic of African-Americans be routinely beaten and/or killed by cops.

  75. bettykath says:

    I hate it when I argue with myself and lose. 😉

  76. bettykath says:

    Pete, You provided the many more examples I suggested. Thanks for posting.

  77. Dd says:

    Those of you who thinks or believe she needed to be arrested would be infuriatied if she was white. Besides should she be forced on her stomach.

Comments are closed.