Bianca Williams stop accusing race motivated.

[andymadmak]

wjb said:

Why, is her complaint false or malicious?

I don't follow you.

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

[biggbn]

andymadmak said:

wjb said:

Why, is her complaint false or malicious?

I don't follow you.

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

I dont think it was racial profiling, or I would hope it wasn't. What I find telling is that those who immediately posted suppositions about their windows being so dark the occupants could not be seen are now strangley quiet about this, as their assumption was shown to be completely wrong. I wonder why people jump to one side or the other and become intransigent to any other possibility. My mind is still not made up about this situation.

[Greendubber]

biggbn said:

andymadmak said:

wjb said:

Why, is her complaint false or malicious?

I don't follow you.

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

I dont think it was racial profiling, or I would hope it wasn't. What I find telling is that those who immediately posted suppositions about their windows being so dark the occupants could not be seen are now strangley quiet about this, as their assumption was shown to be completely wrong. I wonder why people jump to one side or the other and become intransigent to any other possibility. My mind is still not made up about this situation.

I dont think they were wrong to mentioned it, I'm sure the met mentioned tinted windows somewhere down the line. Rear privacy glass is properly dark so if they were behind the car when it made off they may well have not been able to see the occupants due to the tints/privacy glass.

[biggbn]

Greendubber said:

biggbn said:

andymadmak said:

wjb said:

Why, is her complaint false or malicious?

I don't follow you.

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

I dont think it was racial profiling, or I would hope it wasn't. What I find telling is that those who immediately posted suppositions about their windows being so dark the occupants could not be seen are now strangley quiet about this, as their assumption was shown to be completely wrong. I wonder why people jump to one side or the other and become intransigent to any other possibility. My mind is still not made up about this situation.

I dont think they were wrong to mentioned it, I'm sure the met mentioned tinted windows somewhere down the line. Rear privacy glass is properly dark so if they were behind the car when it made off they may well have not been able to see the occupants due to the tints/privacy glass.

It was put forward as a reason without any knowledge if the tints in a police cant be wrong manner. One poster posted a picture of the car which was very helpful and one could see how a misunderstanding could occur, then another posted the car as driven which clarified things further. People, myself included, assumed Williams was lying because of the first picture of the car. I find it interesting that everything the police have said, or been rumoured to have said (wrong way down one way street being one), have been repeated verbatim as fact by posters with no more knowledge than you or I. Yet any denial by Williams or her husband have been dismissed out of hand. She was telling the truth about the tints. Could she be telling the truth about other aspects? Why accept the police version and dismiss the complaints, i dont get it?

Please note, I am open to either side being right or wrong, I've got no ship in this storm in a teacup. But my mind is open either way. Many had made their minds up, gone strangely quiet and ignored or derided the apology. Its all a bit strange.

[andymadmak]

I really never understood where the 'wrong way down a one way street' thing came from. I didn't hear the police claim that at all. My understanding is that the Police said that the car was being driven erratically and at one point was driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Red 4]

Didn't Williams assert that they were stopped because a black man was driving a nice car ?

I could be mistaken here but I'm pretty sure she did. She must have forgotten about the failing to stop for police aspect. Easily done.

[wjb]

andymadmak said:

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

I honestly don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not inside the mind of Ms Williams or the officers.

However, once stopped and the doors were open, there wasn't much of, if any re-assessment done by the officers.

Had they opened the doors and seen two white team gb athletes with their baby would they have continued to deal with them how they did? Or would they have calmed it down a bit, would they have been in handcuffs for that length of time?

Maybe, maybe not. That's where the problem lies, had the police not treated black people unfairly down the years, and even now, then this wouldn't be a discussion. Everyone would've written their complaint off as bs, however we all know this isn't the case, whether we like to admit it or not.

Ms Williams and her partner aren't criminals, but were treated like such. Now ask yourself why? Because they "made off" or because they looked like criminals once stopped in the eyes of the officers?

Only the officers will know of they racially profiled them, there will be an investigation, but it will probably be difficult to prove.

If it isn't proven, then everyone will be on here and social media saying they made it all up and racism doesn't exist in the police.

If they genuinely didn't racially profile them, then that's fine with me.

But people are blindly saying that they didn't, like it doesn't actually happen, I can't get my head around that.

[wjb]

Red 4 said:

Didn't Williams assert that they were stopped because a black man was driving a nice car ?

I could be mistaken here but I'm pretty sure she did. She must have forgotten about the failing to stop for police aspect. Easily done.

So why were they stopped in the first place? Before allegedly making off?

Totally random s163? Or police saw black man in a nice car?

I'm guessing when asked, the officers will say option 1.

[Bigends]

wjb said:

Red 4 said:

Didn't Williams assert that they were stopped because a black man was driving a nice car ?

I could be mistaken here but I'm pretty sure she did. She must have forgotten about the failing to stop for police aspect. Easily done.

So why were they stopped in the first place? Before allegedly making off?

Totally random s163? Or police saw black man in a nice car?

I'm guessing when asked, the officers will say option 1.

Good point not raised yet - why the stop in the first place - it doesnt matter, they can do that - it'll be interesting to know why though. Decent car, early afternoon

Edited by Bigends on Friday 10th July 17:35

[R Mutt]

wjb said:

andymadmak said:

I believe it might very well be. She is claiming racial profiling is what led to her stop and treatment.
The Police are saying the stop came about from the way the vehicle was being driven.
I believe she and her partner were treated the way they were at the stop because of the fact they had driven away when they stopped the first time. ( a fact that Ms Williams does not deny)

So, racial profiling? Or just someone who cannot accept they made a mistake and are making a false complaint to cover their tracks?
What do you think and why?

I honestly don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not inside the mind of Ms Williams or the officers.

However, once stopped and the doors were open, there wasn't much of, if any re-assessment done by the officers.

Had they opened the doors and seen two white team gb athletes with their baby would they have continued to deal with them how they did? Or would they have calmed it down a bit, would they have been in handcuffs for that length of time?

Maybe, maybe not. That's where the problem lies, had the police not treated black people unfairly down the years, and even now, then this wouldn't be a discussion. Everyone would've written their complaint off as bs, however we all know this isn't the case, whether we like to admit it or not.

Ms Williams and her partner aren't criminals, but were treated like such. Now ask yourself why? Because they "made off" or because they looked like criminals once stopped in the eyes of the officers?

Only the officers will know of they racially profiled them, there will be an investigation, but it will probably be difficult to prove.

If it isn't proven, then everyone will be on here and social media saying they made it all up and racism doesn't exist in the police.

If they genuinely didn't racially profile them, then that's fine with me.

But people are blindly saying that they didn't, like it doesn't actually happen, I can't get my head around that.

We've all profiled and been profiled. White middle aged woman driving an Audi at 25 miles an hour, probably had a drink at lunchtime. Young black male, same car same speed maybe a different time of the day, probably a drug dealer.

Look at the charts on the number stops resulting in charges. Same ratio across races.

[biggbn]

andymadmak said:

I really never understood where the 'wrong way down a one way street' thing came from. I didn't hear the police claim that at all. My understanding is that the Police said that the car was being driven erratically and at one point was driving on the wrong side of the road.

My point exactly. The police never said that but a poster on here claimed it.

[Track Rod]

wjb said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

wjb said:

I wonder how some of you guys would react if you'd been stopped, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 times for no reason other than being black in a public place....

Would you all remain civilised, polite and calm?

Genuine question.

See, my post is quite relevant, as it was a response to this.

Thought I'd quoted it. Obviously didn't.

I understood the point you were making and I think it's entirely relevant. Personally, I'd be mighty p****d off if I was stopped repeatedly for no reason other than my ethnicity.
Those who responded to say they'd been stopped multiple times for tinted windows, too fast through a roundabout, early hours of the morning, fancy car in a rough neighbourhood etc but they remained polite and understanding are missing your point.

[wjb]

R Mutt said:

We've all profiled and been profiled. White middle aged woman driving an Audi at 25 miles an hour, probably had a drink at lunchtime. Young black male, same car same speed maybe a different time of the day, probably a drug dealer.

Look at the charts on the number stops resulting in charges. Same ratio across races.

So is it ok to profile then, without intelligence?

How about a white male aged 50-60 outside a school, do we assume they're a sex offender? Is that ok?

What about an asian guy with a beard and a camera in town, shall we assume he's a terrorist doing hostile reconnaissance?

[Red 4]

wjb said:

Red 4 said:

Didn't Williams assert that they were stopped because a black man was driving a nice car ?

I could be mistaken here but I'm pretty sure she did. She must have forgotten about the failing to stop for police aspect. Easily done.

So why were they stopped in the first place? Before allegedly making off?

Totally random s163? Or police saw black man in a nice car?

I'm guessing when asked, the officers will say option 1.

Manner of driving and using the backstreets apparently. Maybe it looked like they saw the carrier and tried to evade the police.

As you say though, no reason is required so your point is moot.

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 10th July 17:49

[R Mutt]

wjb said:

R Mutt said:

We've all profiled and been profiled. White middle aged woman driving an Audi at 25 miles an hour, probably had a drink at lunchtime. Young black male, same car same speed maybe a different time of the day, probably a drug dealer.

Look at the charts on the number stops resulting in charges. Same ratio across races.

So is it ok to profile then, without intelligence?

How about a white male aged 50-60 outside a school, do we assume they're a sex offender? Is that ok?

What about an asian guy with a beard and a camera in town, shall we assume he's a terrorist doing hostile reconnaissance?

Probably what most parents would think isn't it?

And in the City I'd imagine that would draw the attention of the police.

I was pulled in Spain last year for taking pictures at night in a residential complex. No intelligence except the fact that there had allegedly been burglaries. Same with any other stop where a crime has recently taken place. Spurious but when does that become intelligence, when you catch someone in the act?

[Bigends]

biggbn said:

andymadmak said:

I really never understood where the 'wrong way down a one way street' thing came from. I didn't hear the police claim that at all. My understanding is that the Police said that the car was being driven erratically and at one point was driving on the wrong side of the road.

My point exactly. The police never said that but a poster on here claimed it.

An earlier poster who seems to know the area said it was common for locals to go to the wrong side of the road at a certain point on the route. Different if the driver in this case was the wrong side of the road to overtake others in order to evade capture

[wjb]

Red 4 said:

Manner of driving and using the backstreets apparently.

As you say though, no reason is required so your point is moot.

My point exactly, no reason required, and the fact that officers can also use discretion regarding picking and choosing who they want to give tickets to and/or arrest.

This, along with stop /search has historically been abused by the police resulting in black people being treated unfairly down the years.

Which in turn has made large parts of black community believe the police are the enemy.

Basically the "old lot" have ruined it for officers now.

Some will be getting accused of racism when they are in fact, just doing their job.

The cap will obviously fit some others though.

Just my opinion on it all.

[wjb]

Track Rod said:

wjb said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

wjb said:

I wonder how some of you guys would react if you'd been stopped, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 times for no reason other than being black in a public place....

Would you all remain civilised, polite and calm?

Genuine question.

See, my post is quite relevant, as it was a response to this.

Thought I'd quoted it. Obviously didn't.

I understood the point you were making and I think it's entirely relevant. Personally, I'd be mighty p****d off if I was stopped repeatedly for no reason other than my ethnicity.
Those who responded to say they'd been stopped multiple times for tinted windows, too fast through a roundabout, early hours of the morning, fancy car in a rough neighbourhood etc but they remained polite and understanding are missing your point.

And there I was thinking I was just banging my head against a wall

[Bigends]

wjb said:

Red 4 said:

Manner of driving and using the backstreets apparently.

As you say though, no reason is required so your point is moot.

My point exactly, no reason required, and the fact that officers can also use discretion regarding picking and choosing who they want to give tickets to and/or arrest.

This, along with stop /search has historically been abused by the police resulting in black people being treated unfairly down the years.

Which in turn has made large parts of black community believe the police are the enemy.

Basically the "old lot" have ruined it for officers now.

Some will be getting accused of racism when they are in fact, just doing their job.

The cap will obviously fit some others though.

Just my opinion on it all.

Current stop search rules have been in place since at least 2001 - so not much to do with the 'old lot' i'd suggest

[wjb]

Bigends said:

Current stop search rules have been in place since at least 2001 - so not much to do with the 'old lot' i'd suggest

That's almost 20 years ago, average beat cop has about 3 years experience.

I think it's fair to say old lot/new lot

Don't forget who was teaching those late 90's / early 2000 cops...