Michigan Police Won't Explain Why They Arrested an 11-Year-Old Girl at Gunpoint

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: bgerbger


"Carry Manning was later found and arrested, but the damage to the girl has been done."

What a silly statement you have added. Please come back with more details. A eleven year old child is capable of many crimes and pure mischief. So let's have some details before you want to hate all police.

There are some things that are so wrong, you don't have to wait for details because the fact that it happened in the only detail that matters.

Unless the 11 year old girl was pointing a gun at someone, there is absolutely no reason on the face of the earth that they should have held her at gun point. Period.The.End.

Stop being an apologist.

As it turns out; evidently the girl had done nothing wrong at all, therefor; needed NOT to be placed in cuffs and traumatized. Set her off to the side, call a social worker to keep her calm, you don't cuff this person and throw them in the back of a cruiser.

This is a systemic problem. People letting the police slide for doing things that are traumatic and unnecessary and citing "procedure" when there is no procedure that says to behave like this.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: bgerbger


"Carry Manning was later found and arrested, but the damage to the girl has been done."

What a silly statement you have added. Please come back with more details. A eleven year old child is capable of many crimes and pure mischief. So let's have some details before you want to hate all police.

wow, must be a cop huh? or maybe a boyfriend? or family member? FACT: most cops are thugs, and this is not out of the realm of things cops do to innocent people, but thanks for your concerned post.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: bgerbger


"Carry Manning was later found and arrested, but the damage to the girl has been done."

What a silly statement you have added. Please come back with more details. A eleven year old child is capable of many crimes and pure mischief. So let's have some details before you want to hate all police.

Also, the problem with YOUR silly statement is that the OP linked the article as well, and there are no more details...... The cops aren't saying anything, in which your cop lovin *** should know that is illegal to not tell someone why they are being arrested/detained/etc... So what are you really asking for here? Sounds like you are trying to stick up for the thugs no matter what happened here, at least that's what it looks like from this side of it.....

a reply to: gunshooter

My favorite line currently is:

"we're detaining you for your safety and ours"

if that's not a load of bull#, nothing is. How the blazing hell is me being cuffed and defenseless helping me be safe?
You want to watch this BS in action, watch an episode or two of "Live PD". Just the way some of those officers act in front of a camera is mind blowing. Makes you wonder what's up when the cameras are off.

(although, I will admit, that show should probably be called "DUI: the tv show")

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't care about how people feel about it--feelings are irrelevant to appropriate procedure.

I'm going to speak in the most general of terms here... but I think the point of disconnect is what you call "appropriate" procedure -- which is a very subjective term, and is obviously in dispute with many people. I understand that lots of legal experts and authorities have deemed such procedures as appropriate and proper and even necessary. But it's still subjective... and there are still plenty of folks who strongly disagree -- to say the least! Including me to one extent or another. I would have to know much more about the specifics in this case before I could make any judgment call though.

But I will also say that feelings are quite relevant -- and can be a guiding light or a blinding light. Sometimes we cannot express ourselves adequately with words... sometimes we do not understand all the whys and wherefores to adequately address the particulars of a matter... but our feelings are our first and primary warning system of danger.

And on a more practical level, feelings have everything to do with the issue of proper policing procedures which all seem geared to address the fear of police that everyone is out to do them harm. That's all about "feelings"!

Respect is a two-way street and a little more respect from all sides for the feelings of others would go a long long way in resolving these issues.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I'm going to speak in the most general of terms here... but I think the point of disconnect is what you call "appropriate" procedure -- which is a very subjective term, and is obviously in dispute with many people.

It's in dispute with many people who don't understand what "appropriate procedure" is in the grand scheme of the situation. From what the police report says, they had the three women walk backwards toward them, and they cuffed them while their back was turned to them so that they could check for weapons (that's my assumption, but it's common to cuff people before searching them in many situations and LEO departments).

I understand that lots of legal experts and authorities have deemed such procedures as appropriate and proper and even necessary. But it's still subjective... and there are still plenty of folks who strongly disagree -- to say the least! Including me to one extent or another.

Again, if legal and law-enforcement experts cite the appropriateness of the procedure followed, why does the opinion of "plenty of folks who strongly disagree" matter? Policy is set in writing, and training is provided for these officers on how to handle these types of situations, and officers must follow policy and training except, maybe, in extreme cases that go awry. Nothing went awry with these three females, so nothing outside of policy needed to happen in this instance.

Like I've noted before in this thread, nothing about the age or appearance of the 11-year-old girl indicated how benign she will act in this situation, so the officers must to these minor things (temporary cuffing, searching for weapons, detaining while searching the home) in order to do their job properly.

But I will also say that feelings are quite relevant -- and can be a guiding light or a blinding light. Sometimes we cannot express ourselves adequately with words... sometimes we do not understand all the whys and wherefores to adequately address the particulars of a matter... but our feelings are our first and primary warning system of danger.

And feelings are also, as you pointed out, a way of blinding people when presented with facts and rationale concerning that which they are emotional about. There is a reason that "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy, because, as I noted, emotion doesn't have an appropriate place at the table while rebutting policy and procedure that already exists and was followed.

I'm not a robot--I feel terrible that the girl has had her outlook around LEOs altered because of this situation, and that she was put in that situation to begin with, but to pretend that the officers did terrible things to this girl, and to pretend that their actions have no justification, is the wrong approach, and the only justification for these approaches that I can see is either emotional bias, or just plain ignorance to understand the processes and the "whys" behind this situation.

And on a more practical level, feelings have everything to do with the issue of proper policing procedures which all seem geared to address the fear of police that everyone is out to do them harm. That's all about "feelings"!

Actually, that's not the driving force behind police procedures at all. Why must it be "fear" versus the simple reality of the job? Reality is that officers are often faced with people who willfully do harm to others and dislike the police on a daily basis, and there are plenty of statistics of police being assaulted and even killed with little-to-no warning from the person with whom they are dealing. Police officers have been ambushed and killed for doing nothing more than sitting in their cruisers at apparently the wrong place and wrong time.

My point being is that, yes, there needs to be a level of fear involved in policing, because that helps officers reduce or negate complacency while doing their jobs, but policy and procedures are much, much more based on statistics, research, and logic than they are emotions. There are many things that officers cannot do in approaching a potentially dangerous situation that presents itself.

A good example is Krav Maga, a martial art in which I train and (as of last night) officially instruct: It is a very brutal, even deadly fighting system that is designed for military and adapted for civilian use. With the brutality and deadliness involved in the defenses and approach to fighting, when using the training to train law enforcement, we have to alter things and reduce the violence involved because officers cannot respond in such ways--they have to stop short of breaking wrists in disarming individuals, or breaking ribs in order to take a person down to the ground, or dislocating joints, or stomping faces into the ground.

These defenses, while absolutely appropriate for military personnel and the civilian facing a deadly threat, cannot work for law enforcement, as it is excessive force. Hell, even in the civilian world they could cause you massive legal headaches.

Policy and procedure, on many, many levels of law enforcement, are in place to protect the public AND the officers, not just the officers. And this is done logically, not emotionally, as legal precedent, updated training, current laws, and many other factors are considered.

I don't know if you've ever been privy to the process of creating policy for ANY profession, but if you have, you'd understand that emotion has exceptionally little to do with it, if at all. Hell, I've been privy to working with military lawyers concerning the policy of rules of engagement during war time (pre-9/11 time)--if emotion were a part of it, we wouldn't have such confining ROI for our military, as they put us at a disadvantage during war against people who have no rules. (I'm not saying that we should base procedure on the lowest common denominator, I'm just pointing out that emotions don't guide policy)

Respect is a two-way street and a little more respect from all sides for the feelings of others would go a long long way in resolving these issues.

I've never said that some officers, in how they interact, earn very little respect, but as you note, many civilians earn little respect from LEOs as well, and I would argue that the scale tips waaaay on the side of many more civilians being disrespectful to otherwise respectful officers.

Sorry for the long-windedness--I'm avoiding paying attention to a monthly online meeting for my job

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's in dispute with many people who don't understand what "appropriate procedure" is in the grand scheme of the situation. From what the police report says, they had the three women walk backwards toward them, and they cuffed them while their back was turned to them so that they could check for weapons (that's my assumption, but it's common to cuff people before searching them in many situations and LEO departments).

It's in dispute with people who see no good reason for police to search, cuff and detain anyone who has presented no threat to the officers and whom the officers have no reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime. Hence the outrage that an 11-year-old Black girl who could not in any way be mistaken for the 40-year-old White woman they were looking for was treated as a criminal.

You think it's proper -- and I would wager even necessary -- for officers to take these precautionary measures for their own safety. Others disagree.

My question is if this police action could have been taken without involving an 11-year-old girl -- or anyone else -- and thus minimize such events (if necessary at all).

Again, if legal and law-enforcement experts cite the appropriateness of the procedure followed, why does the opinion of "plenty of folks who strongly disagree" matter?

Really??? How about because we're the ones suffering the consequences? How about because they work for us to provide a service for us and we set the terms and conditions and they can choose to abide by those terms or not? How about because that kind of power and authority is also ripe for abuse for those so inclined?

And how about this: Because this is just one more way that we are demanded to "comply." There is no place for a command to "comply" and "obey" in a free nation and free people. We are not subjects to be commanded; we are citizens with liberty and sovereignty. So if these actions cannot be backed up with more reason and logic than "because we said so... now comply dammit!" then those making such commands cannot be trusted. If that's their only logic, then anything goes.

Policy is set in writing, and training is provided for these officers on how to handle these types of situations, and officers must follow policy and training except, maybe, in extreme cases that go awry. Nothing went awry with these three females, so nothing outside of policy needed to happen in this instance.

And one more thing to think about. As common sense tells us and as experience has proven to us, these policies/procedures/training get innocent people killed who are no threat to anyone -- especially not the officers. It's a given under these rules of engagement. And absolutely no effort is made by "Team LEO" to examine the police missteps leading up to their deaths, much less learn and improve policy and procedure to minimize these incidents, but rather we're told how wonderful it is the officer went home to sleep in his own bed that night and whatever he had to do to get there is fine and dandy.

We're basically being told that we are expendable and that our life is less worthy than the hired guns of government -- because the hired guns of government said so.

And feelings are also, as you pointed out, a way of blinding people when presented with facts and rationale concerning that which they are emotional about.

So we deal with that... on both sides. Yeah, people get emotional when they know their lives are on the line... including the average John and Jane Doe... it's not just LEOs! And no matter how many experts tell us that these policies and procedures are appropriate and proper, the bottom line and end result is still the same. LEOs and their advocates need to give the people (and their lives) the same respect and care and concern that they want the people to give them -- and rightfully so. Don't tell me my life is expendable... tell me what is being done to ensure that ALL lives matter. Not just BLUE lives.

I'm not a robot--I feel terrible that the girl has had her outlook around LEOs altered because of this situation, and that she was put in that situation to begin with, but to pretend that the officers did terrible things to this girl, and to pretend that their actions have no justification, is the wrong approach...

Here I have to agree. The girl will take away from this exactly what her parents/family instill in her. It's an unfortunate incident, and while I don't think it ever should have happened, they were in no way abusive to her personally. And it would seem that she was cooperative and respectful as well. And no one was hurt so that's the good news!

I have to get some stuff done so I can't respond to the rest of your comment, but I agree with much... I just think we need to go farther.

And congrats on your instructor status!!!

originally posted by: bgerbger

What is wrong with these police?

Nothing. The police know that the black race are the aliens from another star system.

That seemingly 11-year old girl is actually like superwoman, and could easily take down a dozen armed cops single handily.

So, they were appropriately equipped for the task at hand.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey


It's in dispute with people who see no good reason for police to search, cuff and detain anyone who has presented no threat to the officers and whom the officers have no reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime. Hence the outrage that an 11-year-old Black girl who could not in any way be mistaken for the 40-year-old White woman they were looking for was treated as a criminal.

I won't explain it again after this: The reason that she was cuffed was in order for the officers to search for weapons (admittedly, that's an educated guess based on what I know about procedure...of course, that's not specifically referenced in anything). The reason that she would/could be detained was that they were searching the home in an active effort to find someone suspected of attempted murder. Placing her in a police vehicle for that time is not excessive nor ridiculous.

Yes, that is my opinon, along with many other people, many of whom do this for a living. But at this point, to each their own.

You think it's proper -- and I would wager even necessary -- for officers to take these precautionary measures for their own safety.

Necessary and proper are two different things. It's never NECESSARY to cuff someone while searching them, but it isn't improper to do so, either. Better safe than sorry in situations like this. If you differ in opinion, it is what it is.

How about because we're the ones suffering the consequences? How about because they work for us to provide a service for us and we set the terms and conditions and they can choose to abide by those terms or not? How about because that kind of power and authority is also ripe for abuse for those so inclined?

No, average citizenry does not set the terms and conditions for how law enforcement does its job. That's as inappropriate a statement as I've seen on this thread.

And the civilian population reaps far more benefits from how officers do their jobs than they 'suffer the consequences.' Let's keep things in perspective. And again...all of this rant over because an 11-year-old was detained for a relatively short amount of time while officers searched for an attempted murderer?


I'm sorry, but I must say that this outrage is absurd, or at the very least, over-exaggerated, in this instance (which has been the focus of my comments: THIS instance).

There is no place for a command to "comply" and "obey" in a free nation and free people. We are not subjects to be commanded; we are citizens with liberty and sovereignty. So if these actions cannot be backed up with more reason and logic than "because we said so... now comply dammit!" then those making such commands cannot be trusted. If that's their only logic, then anything goes.

They are backed with more, you are just choosing not to accept that fact. You are pretending that LEOs are out to subjugate everyone at the threat of a gun, and this is not the case. I'm not ignoring that there ARE bad cops out their with visions of authoritative grandeur, but generally speaking, this idea of yours is very far from actual reality.

As common sense tells us and as experience has proven to us, these policies/procedures/training get innocent people killed who are no threat to anyone -- especially not the officers. It's a given under these rules of engagement. And absolutely no effort is made by "Team LEO" to examine the police missteps leading up to their deaths, much less learn and improve policy and procedure to minimize these incidents, but rather we're told how wonderful it is the officer went home to sleep in his own bed that night and whatever he had to do to get there is fine and dandy.

I'm going to have to stop you right there and say that you've done ZERO honest research on this topic. Departments change and update their policies constantly based on instances like this and others, especially if and when they make national news. The Cincinnati PD has made changes to their policies and procedures quite a few times over recent years because of officer-involved shootings and killings, and many others across the country do the same. And even in changes aren't implemented, department policies will always be reviewed when things like this occur.

To claim otherwise is to choose to ignore the truth.

We're basically being told that we are expendable and that our life is less worthy than the hired guns of government -- because the hired guns of government said so.

If you choose to interpret things that way, I don't think that I say will change your mind.

Yeah, people get emotional when they know their lives are on the line... including the average John and Jane Doe... it's not just LEOs!

The difference there is that, 9.99 times out of ten, there is no logical reason for an average citizen to feel like their life is on the line during an encounter with LE (note that I specified "logical reason"). On the other hand, LEOs are called to respond to many instances where bad guys are involved, every day. So, no, it's not an equal distribution of emotion in this discussion, and I'm not going to pretend that it is.

LEOs and their advocates need to give the people (and their lives) the same respect and care and concern that they want the people to give them -- and rightfully so. Don't tell me my life is expendable... tell me what is being done to ensure that ALL lives matter. Not just BLUE lives.

Show me where the massive majority of officer-involved shootings haven't been a justified response to the actions of the suspect, and then we can pretend that all of the onus of ensuring that all lives matter falls on the police. When you do that, we can talk, otherwise, it's just hyperbole and ideology being presented as fact. Of course all lives matter, but that doesn't mean that people don't make mistakes, shoot to kill at unlawful times, or that people don't do stupid things that get themselves killed.

The girl will take away from this exactly what her parents/family instill in her. It's an unfortunate incident, and while I don't think it ever should have happened, they were in no way abusive to her personally. And it would seem that she was cooperative and respectful as well. And no one was hurt so that's the good news!

And this is the way that it should have gone, and this is the end result that should make everyone happy (except, IMO, how the family is reacting to it). Yes, it sucks that an 11-year-old was caught up in it all, but sometimes the reality of "guilt by association" causes someone to get caught up in a mess that isn't theirs. But I cannot get behind the narrative that these officers did something wrong in this instance, and I absolutely will call out unwarranted/excessive outrage when I see it.

Call it a character flaw, I guess.

And congrats on your instructor status!!!

Ha...thanks!

And I ain't mad atcha, just disagree with some things. I do, however, think that I'm going to bow out of this thread. With the discussion in the Shaver thread still going, adding this one to the mix, too, is going to make my head explode.

#notarobot

a reply to: SlapMonkey

First:

I'm going to have to stop you right there and say that you've done ZERO honest research on this topic. Departments change and update their policies constantly based on instances like this and others, especially if and when they make national news. The Cincinnati PD has made changes to their policies and procedures quite a few times over recent years because of officer-involved shootings and killings, and many others across the country do the same. And even in changes aren't implemented, department policies will always be reviewed when things like this occur.

To claim otherwise is to choose to ignore the truth.

Shame on me. You're right and I do know better. I have read of changes in policy based on unfortunate events -- but I have to say they are few and far between. More often not, poor behavior and policies are defended as is, with no consideration for change/reform/improvement... because what the officer did was A-okay.

Generally speaking, I want to give the LEO every advantage over the bad guys... I want the LEOs to have the absolute best training and defensive equipment possible and available to keep them safe from the bad things bad guys do -- that's our responsibility because we hire them (and yes, that does make us the boss)... but I also want LEO to have the same care and concern and respect for the rest of us, and I want to know that anytime and every time that rights are violated that it was absolutely necessary, and the LEOs involved did anything and everything possible to protect and defend our rights (and our life and limb) to the best of their ability. And I especially expect that they will do nothing leading up to the encounter that unnecessarily creates a situation that requires violating rights by policy/procedure.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Shame on me. You're right and I do know better. I have read of changes in policy based on unfortunate events -- but I have to say they are few and far between. More often not, poor behavior and policies are defended as is, with no consideration for change/reform/improvement... because what the officer did was A-okay.

No, not 'shame on you,' this is just the emotional aspect of it all. It forces people to make exaggerated claims. I'm not immune to doing it over some topics, but when it comes to legal issues, I pride myself in being able to set aside emotion in order to discuss facts.

Sometimes it's to a fault and causes people to think that I'm a heartless bastard, but I'll take on the accusations if it helps some people understand things better, you know?

I'll still disagree with you in the "more often than not" comment--in my experience, nearly every time something like this happens, reviewing and discussing policy is almost always one of the first step after the fact. However, I could be wrong about that--that much I'll admit, because I don't have statistics to back up my claim.

... but I also want LEO to have the same care and concern and respect for the rest of us, and I want to know that anytime and every time that rights are violated that it was absolutely necessary, and the LEOs involved did anything and everything possible to protect and defend our rights (and our life and limb) to the best of their ability. And I especially expect that they will do nothing leading up to the encounter that unnecessarily creates a situation that requires violating rights by policy/procedure.

I agree with you on this, but one must remember that mistakes or poor decisions are not necessarily illegal in the eyes of the law or justice system.

Trust me when I say that I'm much more anti-authority than my knowledge and understanding of the law lets on. Hell, I'm very libertarian minded on most things, but I also know that laws do exist, and while they do, it's best to know them and how they pertain to certain instances. That doesn't mean that I never advocate for changes in laws and policies, nor that I find all laws and legal actions just or fair.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not immune to doing it over some topics, but when it comes to legal issues, I pride myself in being able to set aside emotion in order to discuss facts.

Sometimes it's to a fault and causes people to think that I'm a heartless bastard, but I'll take on the accusations if it helps some people understand things better, you know?

Thank you -- that was much more gracious than I probably deserved!

I appreciate that you can examine the facts and the law and all of it without emotion... we need folks like that. And I most definitely want folks standing up loud and proud for the rights and the protection of our LEOs. This isn't an either/or situation... we don't protect either the cops or the public. It's an both/and situation... we have to protect both the cops and the public.

That's why I think these conversations -- even debates and arguments -- are necessary. I really and truly mean it when I say that "all lives matter" and we have to find a way to that middle ground that protects everyone as much as possible. And it's not easy and clear cut because when bad people do bad things there are usually no good options. We can only hope to find the best options. And that comes from communicating and throwing ideas out and refining and reforming and all that!!!

Trust me when I say that I'm much more anti-authority than my knowledge and understanding of the law lets on. Hell, I'm very libertarian minded on most things, but I also know that laws do exist, and while they do, it's best to know them and how they pertain to certain instances. That doesn't mean that I never advocate for changes in laws and policies, nor that I find all laws and legal actions just or fair.

I do get that about you. It can be frustrating -- but I find the law much more frustrating than you! I think in the final analysis, we're on the same exact side.