Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with their story - Page 2

LTC8K6 · 22nd October 2015, 06:48 AM

So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver.

So they told the police a different story.

So the police did not believe the driver was telling the truth.

So they "arrested" her to try to get her to crack and tell the truth.

I would guess that this happens many times every day in the US.

The police have a "witness" that tells a different story, and they try to get someone to tell the "truth", not realizing that the "witness" didn't actually see what they think they saw.

fuelair · 22nd October 2015, 07:43 AM

Did the police think to simply fingerprint the steering wheel? If that was covered above, I missed it - and I suspect that would have covered things real quick......... Either her prints were on the steering wheel in the right places or someone else's were.

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver.

So they told the police a different story.

So the police did not believe the driver was telling the truth.

So they "arrested" her to try to get her to crack and tell the truth.

I would guess that this happens many times every day in the US.

The police have a "witness" that tells a different story, and they try to get someone to tell the "truth", not realizing that the "witness" didn't actually see what they think they saw.

very possible that witnesses thought they saw one thing when in fact something else happened.

luchog · 22nd October 2015, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

very possible that witnesses thought they saw one thing when in fact something else happened.

And very possible that the witnesses were simply vague on what happened, "Yeah, there was another guy here with her, but he left", and the police jumped to the worst possible conclusion because it fit their prejudices, rather than trying to clarify the situation rationally.

eeyore1954 · 22nd October 2015, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

And very possible that the witnesses were simply vague on what happened, "Yeah, there was another guy here with her, but he left", and the police jumped to the worst possible conclusion because it fit their prejudices, rather than trying to clarify the situation rationally.

What prejudices would they be. I would think the default belief at an accident is the person who says they are the driver is the driver. Have these police ever done something like this before? Do they like to think 75 year old women like to lie about who was driving?

luchog · 22nd October 2015, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

What prejudices would they be. I would think the default belief at an accident is the person who says they are the driver is the driver. Have these police ever done something like this before? Do they like to think 75 year old women like to lie about who was driving?

Something like this:

Witness: "There was a guy with her, but he left."

Police: Guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away.

Or, since the police insisted it was a black guy:

Witness: "There was a black guy with her, but he left."

Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Prejudice (black guy = criminal) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away.

TragicMonkey · 22nd October 2015, 09:58 AM

Police take witness statements very seriously, unless of course the witnesses say they saw a cop do something illegal.

gregthehammer · 22nd October 2015, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

Something like this:

Witness: "There was a guy with her, but he left."

Police: Guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away.

Or, since the police insisted it was a black guy:

Witness: "There was a black guy with her, but he left."

Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Prejudice (black guy = criminal) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away.

Regarding your second scenario, let me reiterate that this is Milwaukee we are talking about. therefore what should have happened:
Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (Uh yeah, pretty sure any black guy present was not driving around with miss daisy, therefore witness testimony disregarded).

Not that I am saying Milwaukee is highly segregated due to racial prejudices or anything.

quadraginta · 22nd October 2015, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Can't be busted for lying if you actually... don't say anything to the cops. You know... like that silly fifth amendment thing.

That could get you busted for being "passive-aggressive".

Or is that only if you're a minor in Texas?

The Norseman · 22nd October 2015, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

That could get you busted for being "passive-aggressive".

Or is that only if you're a minor in Texas?

Snort. True, in my ever-sunny optimism, I must have overlooked that little niggling detail.

Ladewig · 22nd October 2015, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

An eyewitness account is not the same as a hunch.

Perhaps my skeptic meter is calibrated incorrectly, but I have seen no real evidence that there were eyewitness accounts. The cops could have made up the claims that eyewitnesses had a different story. The driver asserts that the cops made up a claim that the traffic camera showed a story different from hers. If she was telling the truth about the police lying about that, then it is easier to believe that the police lied about there being people who contradicted the driver's story.

As I said earlier, if there are eyewitness statements these statements should appear in the completed police report (along with the names of the witnesses). I would love to see that report.

I would suspect that if a black guy climbed out of the truck and began running away, at least one of the witnesses would have taken a picture - but that is mere speculation on my part - it is less evidence and more argument from incredulity.

ETA

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver.

So they told the police a different story.

D'oh.
I completely missed that.
Your scenario does explain all aspects of the incident in the simplest manner.
No malfeasance, no misfeasance. Just confusion.

BStrong · 22nd October 2015, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Did the police think to simply fingerprint the steering wheel? If that was covered above, I missed it - and I suspect that would have covered things real quick......... Either her prints were on the steering wheel in the right places or someone else's were.

Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody.

Babbylonian · 22nd October 2015, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody.

Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed.

luchog · 22nd October 2015, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

D'oh.
I completely missed that.
Your scenario does explain all aspects of the incident in the simplest manner.
No malfeasance, no misfeasance. Just confusion.

Confusion doesn't account for the arrest and interrogation. Belligerent incompetence does.

Ladewig · 22nd October 2015, 03:11 PM

Delete

fuelair · 23rd October 2015, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed.

My point... If it can be checked, catch it before you do something stupid, that may come back to bite you OR both!!!!!

fuelair · 23rd October 2015, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody.

Understood, just think that it might still be better to not do something that makes you look a right ******* - as in our example. Besides, all they need to check is the fingerprints on the wheel against the woman' s. If they match, question is answered. If hers do not match, the question is answered.

Babbylonian · 23rd October 2015, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

My point... If it can be checked, catch it before you do something stupid, that may come back to bite you OR both!!!!!

And if it's not worth checking, then it should obviously not be worth arresting someone on spec.

BStrong · 23rd October 2015, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed.

If that's how you see it, that's your prerogative.

The question was why didn't the officers print the woman, print check the steering wheel and then compare the results and act accordingly.

I answered the question.

In between my answer (facts) and your strawman there may be a middle ground where the rights of the individual is protected and officers that have yet to come to a conclusion of the facts of a given incident can perform their duties to the satisfaction of the public and the requirements of criminal and/or civil law.

cullennz · 23rd October 2015, 05:10 PM

Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner

While passenger lies

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

BStrong · 23rd October 2015, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Understood, just think that it might still be better to not do something that makes you look a right ******* - as in our example. Besides, all they need to check is the fingerprints on the wheel against the woman' s. If they match, question is answered. If hers do not match, the question is answered.

And what is your time estimate on how long the process would take*, and what should be done with the folks involved in the interim?

*Hint: in most agencies, and all major metros, print requests not involving notorious crimes or political hot button issues and just about any non-fatal non violent crime incident goes to the back of the line, as in "we'll get to it when we can." see also. rape kit backlogs

http://www.endthebacklog.org/

In the case we're discussing, in the rw, there's -0- chance that the agency involved would commit the resources to print check the interior of a motor vehicle in a non fatal accident to determine the drivers identity. The fact that they detained the woman is unfortunate, but for every story like this, there's some stories like this

http://murderpedia.org/male.D/d/davis-richard-allen.htm

On October 1, 1993, Klaas invited two friends for a sleepover. Around 10:30 p.m., she opened her bedroom door to fetch sleeping bags, when she saw a man with a knife. He tied the girls up, told Klaas' friends to count to 1,000, and then kidnapped Klaas. Over the next two months, about 4,000 people helped search for her. TV shows such as 20/20 and America's Most Wanted covered the kidnapping.

At the time, Davis was a wanted man: the California Highway Patrol had issued an all points bulletin for a violation of parole for a previous crime: any police officer encountering him was to arrest him on that charge (The bulletin was broadcast on the CHP channel, which only CHP radios could receive. CHP practice changed after the case; such bulletins are now broadcast on all police channels).

During the search, police officers encountered Davis in a nearby rural area, where his Ford Pinto was stuck in the mud. Unaware of the APB, the local police let him go, presumably without calling his driver's license number in to their dispatcher, which would have resulted in his arrest. It is believed that he promptly drove to an isolated spot, killed Polly, and buried her in a shallow grave.

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac...esidio_Heights

Two weeks later on October 11, 1969, a passenger entered the cab driven by Paul Stine at the intersection of Mason and Geary Streets (one block west from Union Square) in San Francisco requesting to be taken to Washington and Maple Streets in Presidio Heights. For reasons unknown, Stine drove one block past Maple to Cherry Street; the passenger then shot Stine once in the head with a 9mm, took Stine's wallet and car keys, and tore away a section of Stine's bloodstained shirt tail

Two blocks from the crime scene, Officer Don Fouke, responding to the call, observed a white man walking along the sidewalk and stepping onto a stairway leading up to the front yard of one of the homes on the north side of the street; the encounter lasted only five to ten seconds.[26] The radio dispatcher had alerted to be on the lookout for a black suspect, so they drove past him without stopping; the mix-up in descriptions remains unexplained to this day. A search ensued, but no possible suspects were found. The three teen witnesses worked with a police artist to prepare a composite sketch of Stine's killer; then, a few days later, this police artist returned, working with the witnesses to prepare a second composite sketch of the killer.

marplots · 23rd October 2015, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner

While passenger lies

I hope Hoke gets away.

Babbylonian · 23rd October 2015, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

If that's how you see it, that's your prerogative.

The question was why didn't the officers print the woman, print check the steering wheel and then compare the results and act accordingly.

I answered the question.

In between my answer (facts) and your strawman there may be a middle ground where the rights of the individual is protected and officers that have yet to come to a conclusion of the facts of a given incident can perform their duties to the satisfaction of the public and the requirements of criminal and/or civil law.

There hasn't been a single fact provided that explains why there was good reason to arrest this woman. There have only been excuses based on speculation.

marplots · 23rd October 2015, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

There hasn't been a single fact provided that explains why there was good reason to arrest this woman. There have only been excuses based on speculation.

Maybe they arrested her just to have a reason to take care of her.

DevilsAdvocate · 23rd October 2015, 11:05 PM

This isn’t the biggest travesty of the police, but it can certainly be scary being handcuffed, hauled to the police station, told you are lying about something you are not, and being told you are going to jail for something you didn’t do. It sounds like a young, gung-ho police officer excited to crack a case. It is certainly shoddy police work. The response from the Sergeant is far from adequate. It is incidents like this that foster the view of police as bullies and adversaries rather than the good guys out there to protect and serve.

My guess is that after the crash, the woman moved to the passenger seat fairly quickly. I suspect that when the police arrived, a witness said they heard a crash, came to see what happened, saw nobody in the driver’s seat, saw the woman in the passenger seat, saw a man come around and help her out, and then the man took off. The police probably then questioned other witnesses who either could not confirm that the woman was driving or came a bit late and only saw her in the passenger seat.

So the police probably had reasonable suspicion that she was covering for some other driver for some reason. But the police story seems a bit wacky, and should have been easy enough to resolve. As has been mentioned, a 75 year old white woman driving around Milwaukee with a black man is rare enough in itself, let alone a man wanted by the police, or drunk when she was not also drunk. But it could happen. However, the man who helped the woman out of the car was white, so I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man.

I would think in a runner case usually the driver would take off running and the passenger would move into the driver seat to pretend to be the driver. If a witness said the man who helped her took off, how did he take off? Did he walk away? Or run? Or did another car come and pick him up? Or did he get into the driver’s seat of a car that was already sitting there? From what I have heard, he got into a car sitting there and drove off. What did the police think happened? Did he steal a car maybe, or had a friend in another car that just happened to be there?

Or maybe the police thought it wasn’t the helpful guy, but another guy. However, I haven’t heard that there was any witness reports of somebody else actually driving the truck (just that the woman wasn’t) or somebody getting out of the driver’s door and running away.

I think they had reasonable suspicion to detain her and question her, but they did that at the scene and at the hospital. What was the point of arresting her? What was she arrested for? I haven’t seen anything that would come close to amounting to probable cause.

What is really scary is Sergeant Gauerke’s comment:

Quote:

It's a common police technique to tell someone we know you're lying based on witness statements, Gauerke said.

"It's to encourage the person, 'Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us.' She stuck with her story and that's why she was arrested," he said.

So if the police think you are lying, or even if they just don’t like the looks of you, they can lie to you that they have evidence that you committed a crime. You then have these options:

1. Agree that you committed a crime. Result: Get arrested.
2. Stick to your story. Result: Get arrested.

Sounds like a trial by ordeal by witch hunters more than police work.

DevilsAdvocate · 23rd October 2015, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody.

I don’t think that is true.

I’ve had my fingerprints properly taken many times (mostly for security clearances). It take about a minute or two.

Somebody broke into my friend’s car a stole some stuff. I watch the police take fingerprints from the car. It didn’t take long. It took about a week before the police called him back and told him all the prints they got were his, except for one that wasn’t very good and (due to its location, I think) probably belonged to someone he had in the car rather than the thief.

Ladewig · 24th October 2015, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner

While passenger lies

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

So it was her truck and she was not drunk, but she decided to let her drunk friend drive the truck while she was a passenger. Your theory makes her out to be a pretty stupid person.

cullennz · 24th October 2015, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

So it was her truck and she was not drunk, but she decided to let her drunk friend drive the truck while she was a passenger. Your theory makes her out to be a pretty stupid person.

Who says she wasn't drunk?

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Foolmewunz · 24th October 2015, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner

While passenger lies

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by cullennz

Who says she wasn't drunk?

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Sounds like "cops said...." and you accept anything they say, even after the spokescop tells us that it's cool because cops make stuff up all the time.

And now you're saying that these are incompetent cops? Who couldn't recognize a drunk driver, especially one claiming to have been the driver of the vehicle?

True, we have no evidence that she wasn't drunk but we also have no evidence that she wasn't playing prop for Argentina. There's skepticism and then there's using skepticism as an excuse to provide red herrings and straw men in order to support your pre-ordained position.

cosmicaug · 24th October 2015, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

So the police probably had reasonable suspicion that she was covering for some other driver for some reason.

You can't really arrest someone "for some reason". The closest to that might be arresting someone for resisting arrest (which can be an interesting thing to be arrested for when they can't think of anything else making it become a circular offense).

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

But the police story seems a bit wacky, and should have been easy enough to resolve. As has been mentioned, a 75 year old white woman driving around Milwaukee with a black man is rare enough in itself, let alone a man wanted by the police, or drunk when she was not also drunk. But it could happen. However, the man who helped the woman out of the car was white, so I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man.

"I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man" is the wrong way of framing this. The starting assumption here should be that witness accounts here are unreliable. Whoever they talked to gave them the wrong story. The driver, herself is an unreliable witness (though I'm pretty sure she knew who was driving the car). If we took you and dropped you in the middle of that scene you'd be an unreliable eyewitness. We know enough about this issue these days that that should be law enforcement 101.

We don't know how many witnesses told the cops that there was a second person driving the car. Maybe it was many or maybe it was none.

Stacko · 24th October 2015, 08:12 AM

Why didn't they just check which shoulder the seatbelt bruise shows up on? That would have cleared up whether she was driving or not pretty quickly.

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

You can't really arrest someone "for some reason". The closest to that might be arresting someone for resisting arrest (which can be an interesting thing to be arrested for when they can't think of anything else making it become a circular offense).

"I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man" is the wrong way of framing this. The starting assumption here should be that witness accounts here are unreliable. Whoever they talked to gave them the wrong story. The driver, herself is an unreliable witness (though I'm pretty sure she knew who was driving the car). If we took you and dropped you in the middle of that scene you'd be an unreliable eyewitness. We know enough about this issue these days that that should be law enforcement 101.

We don't know how many witnesses told the cops that there was a second person driving the car. Maybe it was many or maybe it was none.

"Did you see anyone with that woman?"
"Yes, I saw a black man help her get out but he left right after that."

Cut to asking questions of the elderly woman:
"Who was the man who was with you?"
"No one was with me. I was alone in the truck."
"We have witnesses who say that there was a black man with you."
"No, I was alone."
"You're under arrest."

Darat · 24th October 2015, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

"Did you see anyone with that woman?"
"Yes, I saw a black man help her get out but he left right after that."

Cut to asking questions of the elderly woman:
"Who was the man who was with you?"
"No one was with me. I was alone in the truck."
"We have witnesses who say that there was a black man with you."
"No, I was alone."
"You're under arrest."

"A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?"
"Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left"
"Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?"

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

"A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?"
"Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left"
"Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?"

If only. Instead, it seems like they decided to indulge their suspicion and a desire to turn a car accident into a crime.

Meadmaker · 24th October 2015, 08:37 AM

So, she owns a pickup truck, but she is letting someone else drive it?

This story is just plain weird. It makes me want to find some piece of hidden information to explain it, because on the surface it looks very, very, bad for the cops.

It looks to me like the cops showed up, asked someone something, got a bad story out of them, decided what happened before they talked to the woman, and decided that she was lying to them when her story didn't match what they already decided had happened. That's what it looks like.

The alternative is that this little old lady was on her way to lunch with her girlfriends, but she asked a drunk black man to drive her.

I wonder what the other driver, the one who hit her, said about all of this.

Myron Proudfoot · 24th October 2015, 09:07 AM

sounds like the police read Kafka and decided it was a "how to" book.

Stacko · 24th October 2015, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, she owns a pickup truck, but she is letting someone else drive it?

That's pretty common with the elderly.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

This story is just plain weird. It makes me want to find some piece of hidden information to explain it, because on the surface it looks very, very, bad for the cops.

It looks to me like the cops showed up, asked someone something, got a bad story out of them, decided what happened before they talked to the woman, and decided that she was lying to them when her story didn't match what they already decided had happened. That's what it looks like.

The alternative is that this little old lady was on her way to lunch with her girlfriends, but she asked a drunk black man to drive her.

Remember cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth while interviewing or interrogating you so who knows if any witnesses actually said there was a black man at the scene. They might have changed that detail in an attempt to make Mrs. McFarlin slip up and correct them or confuse her into changing her story because they suspected she was lying.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I wonder what the other driver, the one who hit her, said about all of this.

There's lots details that would be nice to have. As it stands, I see no reason to disbelieve Mrs. McFarlin.

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Remember cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth while interviewing or interrogating you so who knows if any witnesses actually said there was a black man at the scene. They might have changed that detail in an attempt to make Mrs. McFarlin slip up and correct them or confuse her into changing her story because they suspected she was lying.

They have no obligation to the suspect but they have an obligation to society at large to have good reasons for the things they do. No good enough reason has been provided here, especially since the only crime they apparently suspected this woman of was being an accessory to something.

Wolrab · 24th October 2015, 09:48 AM

When I was young and stupid, I was driving home from a gig in the city. I believe I had a buzz on. My girlfriend was pounding me with her fists for some imagined slight. I slammed on the brakes, the right front tire blew and I nailed the guard rail. Before the cops got there, I convinced my girlfriend to say she was driving as she was a beautiful and exotic Filipina. and was more likely to get away without a ticket, which she did. Need I mention she is an ex now?

I know of several other people who have switched drivers, some even getting someone dropped off before the cops were called.

In this instance, if someone told the cops she wasn't the driver, I can see them needing to check it out.

Darat · 24th October 2015, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

...snip...

In this instance, if someone told the cops she wasn't the driver, I can see them needing to check it out.

Yep:

"A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?"
"Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left"
"Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?"

And that should have cleared it up, to then arrest her and all the rest of the palava seems to be an over reaction.

22nd October 2015, 06:48 AM	#41
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,421	So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver. So they told the police a different story. So the police did not believe the driver was telling the truth. So they "arrested" her to try to get her to crack and tell the truth. I would guess that this happens many times every day in the US. The police have a "witness" that tells a different story, and they try to get someone to tell the "truth", not realizing that the "witness" didn't actually see what they think they saw.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

22nd October 2015, 07:43 AM	#42
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Did the police think to simply fingerprint the steering wheel? If that was covered above, I missed it - and I suspect that would have covered things real quick......... Either her prints were on the steering wheel in the right places or someone else's were.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

22nd October 2015, 07:46 AM	#43
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,758	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver. So they told the police a different story. So the police did not believe the driver was telling the truth. So they "arrested" her to try to get her to crack and tell the truth. I would guess that this happens many times every day in the US. The police have a "witness" that tells a different story, and they try to get someone to tell the "truth", not realizing that the "witness" didn't actually see what they think they saw. very possible that witnesses thought they saw one thing when in fact something else happened.
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,758

22nd October 2015, 08:04 AM	#44
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 very possible that witnesses thought they saw one thing when in fact something else happened. And very possible that the witnesses were simply vague on what happened, "Yeah, there was another guy here with her, but he left", and the police jumped to the worst possible conclusion because it fit their prejudices, rather than trying to clarify the situation rationally.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

22nd October 2015, 08:19 AM	#45
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,758	Originally Posted by luchog And very possible that the witnesses were simply vague on what happened, "Yeah, there was another guy here with her, but he left", and the police jumped to the worst possible conclusion because it fit their prejudices, rather than trying to clarify the situation rationally. What prejudices would they be. I would think the default belief at an accident is the person who says they are the driver is the driver. Have these police ever done something like this before? Do they like to think 75 year old women like to lie about who was driving?
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,758

22nd October 2015, 09:22 AM	#46
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 What prejudices would they be. I would think the default belief at an accident is the person who says they are the driver is the driver. Have these police ever done something like this before? Do they like to think 75 year old women like to lie about who was driving? Something like this: Witness: "There was a guy with her, but he left." Police: Guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away. Or, since the police insisted it was a black guy: Witness: "There was a black guy with her, but he left." Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Prejudice (black guy = criminal) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

22nd October 2015, 09:58 AM	#47
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,744	Police take witness statements very seriously, unless of course the witnesses say they saw a cop do something illegal.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

22nd October 2015, 10:12 AM	#48
gregthehammer Muse Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 725	Originally Posted by luchog Something like this: Witness: "There was a guy with her, but he left." Police: Guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away. Or, since the police insisted it was a black guy: Witness: "There was a black guy with her, but he left." Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (guy must have been driving because guys always drive and women only drive if there are no guys to drive for them) + Prejudice (old therefore not driving) + Prejudice (black guy = criminal) + Guy left the scene = She's covering for the driver who ran away. Regarding your second scenario, let me reiterate that this is Milwaukee we are talking about. therefore what should have happened: Police: Black guy present + 75yo women + Prejudice (Uh yeah, pretty sure any black guy present was not driving around with miss daisy, therefore witness testimony disregarded). Not that I am saying Milwaukee is highly segregated due to racial prejudices or anything.
gregthehammer Muse Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 725

22nd October 2015, 10:25 AM	#49
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,284	Originally Posted by The Norseman Can't be busted for lying if you actually... don't say anything to the cops. You know... like that silly fifth amendment thing. That could get you busted for being "passive-aggressive". Or is that only if you're a minor in Texas?
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

22nd October 2015, 11:36 AM	#50
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by quadraginta That could get you busted for being "passive-aggressive". Or is that only if you're a minor in Texas? Snort. True, in my ever-sunny optimism, I must have overlooked that little niggling detail.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

22nd October 2015, 12:16 PM	#51
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,096	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 An eyewitness account is not the same as a hunch. Perhaps my skeptic meter is calibrated incorrectly, but I have seen no real evidence that there were eyewitness accounts. The cops could have made up the claims that eyewitnesses had a different story. The driver asserts that the cops made up a claim that the traffic camera showed a story different from hers. If she was telling the truth about the police lying about that, then it is easier to believe that the police lied about there being people who contradicted the driver's story. As I said earlier, if there are eyewitness statements these statements should appear in the completed police report (along with the names of the witnesses). I would love to see that report. I would suspect that if a black guy climbed out of the truck and began running away, at least one of the witnesses would have taken a picture - but that is mere speculation on my part - it is less evidence and more argument from incredulity. ETA Originally Posted by LTC8K6 So the witnesses saw the third party helping her out of the vehicle, and they thought he was the driver. So they told the police a different story. D'oh. I completely missed that. Your scenario does explain all aspects of the incident in the simplest manner. No malfeasance, no misfeasance. Just confusion.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd October 2015 at 12:23 PM.

22nd October 2015, 12:25 PM	#52
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Originally Posted by fuelair Did the police think to simply fingerprint the steering wheel? If that was covered above, I missed it - and I suspect that would have covered things real quick......... Either her prints were on the steering wheel in the right places or someone else's were. Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody.

22nd October 2015, 12:51 PM	#53
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,547	Originally Posted by BStrong Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody. Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed.

22nd October 2015, 01:15 PM	#54
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Ladewig D'oh. I completely missed that. Your scenario does explain all aspects of the incident in the simplest manner. No malfeasance, no misfeasance. Just confusion. Confusion doesn't account for the arrest and interrogation. Belligerent incompetence does.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

22nd October 2015, 03:11 PM	#55
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,096	Delete
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd October 2015 at 03:12 PM.

23rd October 2015, 04:30 PM	#56
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed. My point... If it can be checked, catch it before you do something stupid, that may come back to bite you OR both!!!!!
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

23rd October 2015, 04:36 PM	#57
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by BStrong Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody. Understood, just think that it might still be better to not do something that makes you look a right ******* - as in our example. Besides, all they need to check is the fingerprints on the wheel against the woman' s. If they match, question is answered. If hers do not match, the question is answered.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

23rd October 2015, 04:39 PM	#58
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,547	Originally Posted by fuelair My point... If it can be checked, catch it before you do something stupid, that may come back to bite you OR both!!!!! And if it's not worth checking, then it should obviously not be worth arresting someone on spec.

23rd October 2015, 04:47 PM	#59
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Gathering evidence is hard! That's why police need to simply arrest whomever they wish, whether or not any crime has been committed. If that's how you see it, that's your prerogative. The question was why didn't the officers print the woman, print check the steering wheel and then compare the results and act accordingly. I answered the question. In between my answer (facts) and your strawman there may be a middle ground where the rights of the individual is protected and officers that have yet to come to a conclusion of the facts of a given incident can perform their duties to the satisfaction of the public and the requirements of criminal and/or civil law.

23rd October 2015, 05:10 PM	#60
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 20,023	Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner While passenger lies Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

23rd October 2015, 05:11 PM	#61
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Originally Posted by fuelair Understood, just think that it might still be better to not do something that makes you look a right ******* - as in our example. Besides, all they need to check is the fingerprints on the wheel against the woman' s. If they match, question is answered. If hers do not match, the question is answered. And what is your time estimate on how long the process would take, and what should be done with the folks involved in the interim? Hint: in most agencies, and all major metros, print requests not involving notorious crimes or political hot button issues and just about any non-fatal non violent crime incident goes to the back of the line, as in "we'll get to it when we can." see also. rape kit backlogs http://www.endthebacklog.org/ In the case we're discussing, in the rw, there's -0- chance that the agency involved would commit the resources to print check the interior of a motor vehicle in a non fatal accident to determine the drivers identity. The fact that they detained the woman is unfortunate, but for every story like this, there's some stories like this http://murderpedia.org/male.D/d/davis-richard-allen.htm On October 1, 1993, Klaas invited two friends for a sleepover. Around 10:30 p.m., she opened her bedroom door to fetch sleeping bags, when she saw a man with a knife. He tied the girls up, told Klaas' friends to count to 1,000, and then kidnapped Klaas. Over the next two months, about 4,000 people helped search for her. TV shows such as 20/20 and America's Most Wanted covered the kidnapping. At the time, Davis was a wanted man: the California Highway Patrol had issued an all points bulletin for a violation of parole for a previous crime: any police officer encountering him was to arrest him on that charge (The bulletin was broadcast on the CHP channel, which only CHP radios could receive. CHP practice changed after the case; such bulletins are now broadcast on all police channels). During the search, police officers encountered Davis in a nearby rural area, where his Ford Pinto was stuck in the mud. Unaware of the APB, the local police let him go, presumably without calling his driver's license number in to their dispatcher, which would have resulted in his arrest. It is believed that he promptly drove to an isolated spot, killed Polly, and buried her in a shallow grave. And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac...esidio_Heights Two weeks later on October 11, 1969, a passenger entered the cab driven by Paul Stine at the intersection of Mason and Geary Streets (one block west from Union Square) in San Francisco requesting to be taken to Washington and Maple Streets in Presidio Heights. For reasons unknown, Stine drove one block past Maple to Cherry Street; the passenger then shot Stine once in the head with a 9mm, took Stine's wallet and car keys, and tore away a section of Stine's bloodstained shirt tail Two blocks from the crime scene, Officer Don Fouke, responding to the call, observed a white man walking along the sidewalk and stepping onto a stairway leading up to the front yard of one of the homes on the north side of the street; the encounter lasted only five to ten seconds.[26] The radio dispatcher had alerted to be on the lookout for a black suspect, so they drove past him without stopping; the mix-up in descriptions remains unexplained to this day. A search ensued, but no possible suspects were found. The three teen witnesses worked with a police artist to prepare a composite sketch of Stine's killer; then, a few days later, this police artist returned, working with the witnesses to prepare a second composite sketch of the killer.

23rd October 2015, 05:55 PM	#62
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by cullennz Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner While passenger lies I hope Hoke gets away.

23rd October 2015, 06:54 PM	#63
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,547	Originally Posted by BStrong If that's how you see it, that's your prerogative. The question was why didn't the officers print the woman, print check the steering wheel and then compare the results and act accordingly. I answered the question. In between my answer (facts) and your strawman there may be a middle ground where the rights of the individual is protected and officers that have yet to come to a conclusion of the facts of a given incident can perform their duties to the satisfaction of the public and the requirements of criminal and/or civil law. There hasn't been a single fact provided that explains why there was good reason to arrest this woman. There have only been excuses based on speculation.

23rd October 2015, 06:57 PM	#64
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Babbylonian There hasn't been a single fact provided that explains why there was good reason to arrest this woman. There have only been excuses based on speculation. Maybe they arrested her just to have a reason to take care of her.

23rd October 2015, 11:05 PM	#65
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,622	This isn’t the biggest travesty of the police, but it can certainly be scary being handcuffed, hauled to the police station, told you are lying about something you are not, and being told you are going to jail for something you didn’t do. It sounds like a young, gung-ho police officer excited to crack a case. It is certainly shoddy police work. The response from the Sergeant is far from adequate. It is incidents like this that foster the view of police as bullies and adversaries rather than the good guys out there to protect and serve. My guess is that after the crash, the woman moved to the passenger seat fairly quickly. I suspect that when the police arrived, a witness said they heard a crash, came to see what happened, saw nobody in the driver’s seat, saw the woman in the passenger seat, saw a man come around and help her out, and then the man took off. The police probably then questioned other witnesses who either could not confirm that the woman was driving or came a bit late and only saw her in the passenger seat. So the police probably had reasonable suspicion that she was covering for some other driver for some reason. But the police story seems a bit wacky, and should have been easy enough to resolve. As has been mentioned, a 75 year old white woman driving around Milwaukee with a black man is rare enough in itself, let alone a man wanted by the police, or drunk when she was not also drunk. But it could happen. However, the man who helped the woman out of the car was white, so I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man. I would think in a runner case usually the driver would take off running and the passenger would move into the driver seat to pretend to be the driver. If a witness said the man who helped her took off, how did he take off? Did he walk away? Or run? Or did another car come and pick him up? Or did he get into the driver’s seat of a car that was already sitting there? From what I have heard, he got into a car sitting there and drove off. What did the police think happened? Did he steal a car maybe, or had a friend in another car that just happened to be there? Or maybe the police thought it wasn’t the helpful guy, but another guy. However, I haven’t heard that there was any witness reports of somebody else actually driving the truck (just that the woman wasn’t) or somebody getting out of the driver’s door and running away. I think they had reasonable suspicion to detain her and question her, but they did that at the scene and at the hospital. What was the point of arresting her? What was she arrested for? I haven’t seen anything that would come close to amounting to probable cause. What is really scary is Sergeant Gauerke’s comment: Quote: It's a common police technique to tell someone we know you're lying based on witness statements, Gauerke said. "It's to encourage the person, 'Look, the jig is up, we know what happened. You may as well just tell us.' She stuck with her story and that's why she was arrested," he said. So if the police think you are lying, or even if they just don’t like the looks of you, they can lie to you that they have evidence that you committed a crime. You then have these options: 1. Agree that you committed a crime. Result: Get arrested. 2. Stick to your story. Result: Get arrested. Sounds like a trial by ordeal by witch hunters more than police work.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

23rd October 2015, 11:17 PM	#66
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by BStrong Nobody is getting a csi team out for a non-fatal vehicle accident, and contrary to popular fiction it takes while to properly fingerprint someone and even longer to collect and compare exemplars to include or exclude the fingerprints taken from the individual in custody. I don’t think that is true. I’ve had my fingerprints properly taken many times (mostly for security clearances). It take about a minute or two. Somebody broke into my friend’s car a stole some stuff. I watch the police take fingerprints from the car. It didn’t take long. It took about a week before the police called him back and told him all the prints they got were his, except for one that wasn’t very good and (due to its location, I think) probably belonged to someone he had in the car rather than the thief.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

24th October 2015, 12:05 AM	#67
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,096	Originally Posted by cullennz Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner While passenger lies Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2 So it was her truck and she was not drunk, but she decided to let her drunk friend drive the truck while she was a passenger. Your theory makes her out to be a pretty stupid person.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

24th October 2015, 12:33 AM	#68
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 20,023	Originally Posted by Ladewig So it was her truck and she was not drunk, but she decided to let her drunk friend drive the truck while she was a passenger. Your theory makes her out to be a pretty stupid person. Who says she wasn't drunk? Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

24th October 2015, 05:27 AM	#69
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by cullennz Sounds like people saw drunk driver help passenger, do a runner While passenger lies Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2 Originally Posted by cullennz Who says she wasn't drunk? Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2 Sounds like "cops said...." and you accept anything they say, even after the spokescop tells us that it's cool because cops make stuff up all the time. And now you're saying that these are incompetent cops? Who couldn't recognize a drunk driver, especially one claiming to have been the driver of the vehicle? True, we have no evidence that she wasn't drunk but we also have no evidence that she wasn't playing prop for Argentina. There's skepticism and then there's using skepticism as an excuse to provide red herrings and straw men in order to support your pre-ordained position.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

24th October 2015, 07:29 AM	#70
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,465	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate So the police probably had reasonable suspicion that she was covering for some other driver for some reason. You can't really arrest someone "for some reason". The closest to that might be arresting someone for resisting arrest (which can be an interesting thing to be arrested for when they can't think of anything else making it become a circular offense). Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate But the police story seems a bit wacky, and should have been easy enough to resolve. As has been mentioned, a 75 year old white woman driving around Milwaukee with a black man is rare enough in itself, let alone a man wanted by the police, or drunk when she was not also drunk. But it could happen. However, the man who helped the woman out of the car was white, so I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man. "I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man" is the wrong way of framing this. The starting assumption here should be that witness accounts here are unreliable. Whoever they talked to gave them the wrong story. The driver, herself is an unreliable witness (though I'm pretty sure she knew who was driving the car). If we took you and dropped you in the middle of that scene you'd be an unreliable eyewitness. We know enough about this issue these days that that should be law enforcement 101. We don't know how many witnesses told the cops that there was a second person driving the car. Maybe it was many or maybe it was none.
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

24th October 2015, 08:12 AM	#71
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Why didn't they just check which shoulder the seatbelt bruise shows up on? That would have cleared up whether she was driving or not pretty quickly.

24th October 2015, 08:17 AM	#72
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,547	Originally Posted by cosmicaug You can't really arrest someone "for some reason". The closest to that might be arresting someone for resisting arrest (which can be an interesting thing to be arrested for when they can't think of anything else making it become a circular offense). "I have no idea where they got the idea of a black man" is the wrong way of framing this. The starting assumption here should be that witness accounts here are unreliable. Whoever they talked to gave them the wrong story. The driver, herself is an unreliable witness (though I'm pretty sure she knew who was driving the car). If we took you and dropped you in the middle of that scene you'd be an unreliable eyewitness. We know enough about this issue these days that that should be law enforcement 101. We don't know how many witnesses told the cops that there was a second person driving the car. Maybe it was many or maybe it was none. "Did you see anyone with that woman?" "Yes, I saw a black man help her get out but he left right after that." Cut to asking questions of the elderly woman: "Who was the man who was with you?" "No one was with me. I was alone in the truck." "We have witnesses who say that there was a black man with you." "No, I was alone." "You're under arrest."

24th October 2015, 08:23 AM	#73
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,842	Originally Posted by Babbylonian "Did you see anyone with that woman?" "Yes, I saw a black man help her get out but he left right after that." Cut to asking questions of the elderly woman: "Who was the man who was with you?" "No one was with me. I was alone in the truck." "We have witnesses who say that there was a black man with you." "No, I was alone." "You're under arrest." "A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?" "Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left" "Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?"
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

24th October 2015, 08:35 AM	#74
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,547	Originally Posted by Darat "A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?" "Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left" "Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?" If only. Instead, it seems like they decided to indulge their suspicion and a desire to turn a car accident into a crime.

24th October 2015, 08:37 AM	#75
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,537	So, she owns a pickup truck, but she is letting someone else drive it? This story is just plain weird. It makes me want to find some piece of hidden information to explain it, because on the surface it looks very, very, bad for the cops. It looks to me like the cops showed up, asked someone something, got a bad story out of them, decided what happened before they talked to the woman, and decided that she was lying to them when her story didn't match what they already decided had happened. That's what it looks like. The alternative is that this little old lady was on her way to lunch with her girlfriends, but she asked a drunk black man to drive her. I wonder what the other driver, the one who hit her, said about all of this.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?