Illegal to call police on 'innocent while black' people

William Parcher

Show me the monkey!
William Parcher
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
27,342
It may soon be a crime in Grand Rapids, Michigan to call the police on people of color for 'participating in their lives'

CNN said:
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, it may soon no longer be just unfair to call the police on people of color who have done nothing wrong. It may be downright illegal. The City Commission held a public hearing Tuesday on a proposed human rights ordinance that would make it a criminal misdemeanor to "racially profile people of color for participating in their lives," the city said in a statement.

The charge could result in up to a $500 fine, according to CNN affiliate WOOD.

"I am appalled that I live in a city I grew up in that has to have an ordinance to tell people not to call the police on people because of the color of their skin," said one citizen at the hearing.

Another said that while the intention is good, the ordinance is redundant given existing laws against discrimination. The commission will vote on the ordinance sometime after May 14, WOOD reported.

Grand Rapids experienced racially biased 911 calls first hand, according to the station, when a neighbor falsely reporting a shooting in the neighborhood and a 12-year-old girl was handcuffed as a result.

But stories of police being called when people of color engage in fairly mundane activities have arisen all over the country...
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/us/grand-rapids-racial-police-calls-trnd/index.html
 
Wouldn't it be simpler to criminalise calling the cops on someone for spurrious reasons regardless of race, gender or orientation, etc.?
 
Pointless signaling from the legislature. It is already illegal to file frivolous or false police reports. If anything, this law sounds more difficult to enforce because you might have to prove some sort of racist intent, rather than just proving that a frivolous claim is frivolous.

The problem isn't that these 911 calls aren't illegal, it's that no one is actually citing or arresting these people for doing it. Adding a new law that police won't bother to enforce won't help the situation.
 
Belz... said:
Wouldn't it be simpler to criminalise calling the cops on someone for spurrious reasons regardless of race, gender or orientation, etc.?
Click to expand...
They don't want to make it illegal to make a 911 call for an innocent white person.
 
This might have an impact on black neighborhoods where black people are making police calls against other black people who are actually innocent.
 
uke2se said:
They are especially targeted.

Probably a redundant law anyway. Enfore the existing laws instead.
Click to expand...
But they seem to not want to punish anyone who makes a frivolous police call on a white person. They want a law that is specific for a black victim. This law wouldn't protect a white victim in the same situation or context.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Pointless signaling from the legislature. It is already illegal to file frivolous or false police reports. If anything, this law sounds more difficult to enforce because you might have to prove some sort of racist intent, rather than just proving that a frivolous claim is frivolous.

The problem isn't that these 911 calls aren't illegal, it's that no one is actually citing or arresting these people for doing it. Adding a new law that police won't bother to enforce won't help the situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. Proving it was prompted by racism. Just not going to happen, especially during our 'see something, say something' climate. It does signal that such profiling is not tolerated, so that's a good thing I suppose.
 
William Parcher said:
But they seem to not want to punish anyone who makes a frivolous police call on a white person. They want a law that is specific for a black victim. This law wouldn't protect a white victim in the same situation or context.
Click to expand...

Ok whatever you say.

I'm not in the mood for your race grifting today.
 
William Parcher said:
They want a specific law protecting innocent black people. They feel that they are especially targeted.
Click to expand...

And indeed they are especially targeted.

However, considering that there are already existing laws covering such behavior, then I doubt that there will be much support to enact the new law that you spoke of.
 
uke2se said:
They are especially targeted.
Click to expand...
It's hard to know if the media simply doesn't publish stories about white people who are victims of frivolous police calls. How would we know if the reporters or editors feel that nobody would be interested in reading about that?

Frivolous 911 calls might be a very boring news topic at all times. Unless there is something special about the "victim". A city might receive hundreds of frivolous 911 calls each day.
 
Crossbow said:
I should have said something more correct like:

"It is already illegal to make false and/or frivolous calls to the police."
Click to expand...
A false report or call must include an intentional lie being told - of course that should be illegal. But frivolous is something else. It implies that no lie has been told but that the caller has made a mistake of some sort.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Seems simple.

If the police cannot find a valid reason for the call when they arrive on the scene, the call was false / frivolous.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the reason for suspicion may no longer be observable to the police by the time they get there.

White lady calls cops for a black man prowling on private property. When the cops arrive, he is walking down the street, and he denies any sort of prowling. Who is lying? Can the police do anything?
 
There has to be a big difference between lying to the police and being frivolous. It seems that most frivolous calls would be stopped by the dispatcher and never result in an officer being sent to a location.
 
Thermal said:
The problem is that the reason for suspicion may no longer be observable to the police by the time they get there.

White lady calls cops for a black man prowling on private property. When the cops arrive, he is walking down the street, and he denies any sort of prowling. Who is lying? Can the police do anything?
Click to expand...

That's no different than any other time when the police arrive and can't determine what happened.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I would guess that dispatchers are prohibited from trying to determine the validity of a call.
Click to expand...
That cannot be strictly true.

911, how can I help you?
Hi, my neighbor is eating ice cream next to his pool. He is biting the ice cream instead of licking it. I want you to send an officer right away.

The dispatcher is not likely to send an officer. The caller has told no lies and the call is not "false". It is frivolous because the caller believes that it is against the law to bite ice cream. They are mistaken.
 
LTC8K6 said:
WE already have hate crime laws.

If the call is determined to be racially motivated, then it seems like it would be covered.
Click to expand...

Murder has like... always been illegal but white people didn't stop lynching black people until actual specific laws about lynching were passed.

I'm not a huge fan of the "Make a new law already covered by an existing law" thing in most cases, but it's not always unwarranted or unnecessary.

There's a reason "Well just prosecute people for lynching under already existing murder laws" didn't work but "Make a law against lynching" did.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
That cannot be strictly true.

911, how can I help you?
Hi, my neighbor is eating ice cream next to his pool. He is biting the ice cream instead of licking it. I want you to send an officer right away.

The dispatcher is not likely to send an officer. The caller has told no lies and the call is not "false". It is frivolous because the caller believes that it is against the law to bite ice cream. They are mistaken.
Click to expand...

They will send the police for the frivolous 911 call, imo.

Don't forget that there are non-emergency police numbers, and that police can be sent to a 911 call as an emergency, or as routine.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Murder has like... always been illegal but white people didn't stop lynching black people until actual specific laws about lynching were passed.

I'm not a huge fan of the "Make a new law already covered by an existing law" thing in most cases, but it's not always unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that murdering a black person, slave, or other such "non-persons" through history, has always been illegal?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Murder has like... always been illegal but white people didn't stop lynching black people until actual specific laws about lynching were passed.

I'm not a huge fan of the "Make a new law already covered by an existing law" thing in most cases, but it's not always unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Hate crime laws had more to do with change of jurisdiction. Despite evidence of criminal action, local police would fail to investigate, local prosecutors would choose not to charge, and local juries would choose not to convict. Hate crime laws preempt this entrenched dysfunction of local courts by moving charges to federal courts, which were hopefully less likely to engage in such bad behavior. These laws also have the benefit of added severity of punishment, but change of venue is key.

This "stop calling the cops on black folks minding their own business" law doesn't really accomplish much as it's the same cops and prosecutors who who aren't going after frivolous calls now that would have to enforce it. The problem isn't the law, it's enforcement.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Are you sure that murdering a black person, slave, or other such "non-persons" through history, has always been illegal?
Click to expand...

Murdering a black person was illegal when laws specifically against lynching were enacted.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I can't see how that would work.
Click to expand...
Grand Rapids wants to make it work.

The police often don't find a perp, for various reasons, even when there actually was one at the time of the call.
Click to expand...
They would probably not charge the caller in that case.

But if they somehow determine that there never was a perp then they might charge the caller for a false report (a lie was told) - which is something different than what this story is about.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
This "stop calling the cops on black folks minding their own business" law doesn't really accomplish much as it's the same cops and prosecutors who who aren't going after frivolous calls now that would have to enforce it. The problem isn't the law, it's enforcement.
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
There's a lot to agree with in this thread.

A. Frivolous calls to cops are generally Illegal
B. They are rarely punished in any meaningful way
C. As noted by others, the issue with lynchings in the south was not their legality but that you couldn't get an all white southern jury to convict a white man of killing a blackman.
D. Thus, various federal statutes that allowed the feds to prosecute such crimes.
E. A law that makes a particular type of frivolous call to 911 illegal is unlikely to result in much change.

There are issues with punishing frivolous callers. You don't want to discourage folks from actually calling 911 if they really should.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
There are issues with punishing frivolous callers. You don't want to discourage folks from actually calling 911 if they really should.
Click to expand...
It seems like Grand Rapids wants a change. If the ice cream biter is black then they want the caller to be charged with a crime and be fined. If the ice cream biter is white then a different result is desired by Grand Rapids or maybe no result at all.
 
William Parcher said:
But they want to make this different. If the person is black then there is an automatic violation.
Click to expand...

Are we sure that is the determinant? The wording seems to be calling police on 'persons of color participating in their lives'. That still seems to be a standard to be met, more than just skin color.

I think the intent is: 'you made a frivolous/false police report. Oh, you're also a bigot, so here's another $500 fine to help you to remember to knock that **** off.' Well intentioned, maybe, but seems like too slipery a standard to actually enforce. My guess is that it being crafted when LWB was all the rage and is now coming to the party late.
 
How would the police have the time to bother with such enforcement anyway?

Even if we dismiss the typical biases of the police, they are already overburdened in most areas with crimes of more importance, aren't they?

There is already a trend of not bothering with some low level offenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom