zlacker

>>colinp+(OP)
Honestly, I was blind to police racism against blacks. Until I watched this video.

----------------

This is a shocking video:

https://www.wral.com/ace-perry-pulled-over-by-sampson-county...

+ white cop pulls over black driver (North Carolina)

+ refuses to tell him why he was stopped until he shows ID

+ asks driver questions about company name on his tee-shirt

+ expresses incredulity when driver says he works at the company

+ asks driver other irrelevant personal questions.

+ tells driver he was stopped for driving UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT (doing 65 in a 70)

+ asks driver: "wouldn't you find it suspicious if someone were doing 65 in a 70?"

+ gives driver a WRITTEN WARNING for driving 65 in a 70.

+ brushes off driver's questions saying "I've got stuff to do"

+ Feb 2020

Googling about the case `"Ace Perry" Sampson` it seems no action was taken against the officer. If anyone has an "in" with the ACLU (or similar), the police dept. could use some publicity.

(Strange how some cases don't get the attention they deserve.)

(Note: in response to a now apparently deleted comment: I'm aware that some roads have minimum speed limits. I remember once seeing on a highway: max75 min40. However, 65 in a 70 is just prudence.)

>>reacts+4b
I don’t know if it’s fair to call the cop here a racist, it’s possible sure, but it’s likely the officer didn’t know the guys race before pulling him over.

Police, especially in small towns, are notorious for targeting out of towners (the way a racist cop might target a race they don’t like).

Here you have to understand the training/experience of highway patrol. Here we have a rental and it was traveling below the speed limit...a highway cop might immediately think drug trafficking (again not knowing the race, something you probably never thought without the training and experience), And being under the speed limit gives him the right to make the stop (but what he really wants to do is check up on his suspicion). This would explain the questions about the job and where the driver was going to/coming from.

Maybe I missed something but there are hundreds of thousands of stops everyday, many like this one are ridiculous...I’m not sure how much attention this really deserves nor if the officer (who shouldn’t have made the stop to begin with) deserves to be labeled a racist (especially because now a days that is tantamount to being fired and losing your livelihood as well as all the targeting him and his family would endure).

Maybe a potential policing solution would be something akin to jury duty where citizens are selected to shadow officers on every shift, maybe require a mismatch Of the officer/citizen pairing Based on race/sex.

>>throwa+Ug
By this logic, what speed DOESN'T justify a police officer stopping a driver? Under is somehow suspicious according to your thinking, over is obviously illegal, and who can travel at precisely the speed limit all the time so they never go over or under?

>>andrew+Eh
> Under is somehow suspicious according to your thinking

Read my comment, where did I say this was suspicious? What I said in regards to the stop is:

> there are hundreds of thousands of stops everyday, many like this one are ridiculous

>shouldn’t have made the stop to begin with

The law on police stops is very clear you need a violation of a statute or pc...so if there is a minimum and you are under it that is a violation and a cop can stop you...just the same as if you violate the maximum speed statute the cop can stop you. In Florida they even have a “catch all statute” to pull you over if you are driving the exact speed limit if that wasn’t safe based on “conditions of the road” which of course is purely subjective.

I’m not arguing for or against the laws in any capacity and the laws are not my logic.

>>throwa+6j
Your first comment said "being under the speed limit gives him the right to make the stop". Here you've followed up with "if there is a minimum and you are under it that is a violation". I agree with the latter statement, but being under the maximum is not a violation, and it was never stated that the driver was going under a minimum posted speed limit. The post you were replying to says they were doing 65 in a 70, which seems highly unlikely to be under the minimum - what would the minimum be in that case, 67? (Assuming good intent, perhaps this derives from yoir misreading of the post you originally replied to, or from some other factor I'm missing.)