My son was racially profiled in Sebastopol on Main St.

**natalie** · 07-02-2011 09:19 PM

Looks like the Chief lawyered up and has his story straight.

**Imagery** · 07-02-2011 09:48 PM

Posted in reply to the post by natalie:

Looks like the Chief lawyered up and has his story straight.

lol.

If _____________ (insert deity of choice) came down from on high, and appeared before you to tell you that the story the chief told was the truth, would you become an atheist? From the sounds of it you would, in order to keep your belief that the police couldn't ever be simply doing their job.

**Imagery** · 07-02-2011 10:10 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

Whenever someone on this board stands up for the police, they are immediately branded as encouraging a police-state.

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I have not seen that happen that I recall. An example, please?

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

You've repeatedly proven here, not just in this thread, that you're a big fan of law and order. As in, "we need more of it!" and "When someone does something wrong, call the cops!"

You appear to accept things as they are, as a given not to be questioned...

I would characterize your general stance as, "When in doubt, call the cops. Get the perps, throw the book at them! And if all that is unlikely, there's nothing wrong with a good mob carrying out some frontier justice!"

That stance of yours has always troubled me...

...The terms that come to mind are reactive, hypersensitive, defensive.

Post #45 in this thread if you'd like the complete post.

**rossmen** · 07-02-2011 11:03 PM

this response from chief weaver is an excellent example of institutional racism. for him to conclude that race had nothing to do with it when the officer was responding to citizen suspicion of a young mixed race man demonstrates how unaware weaver is about being other than white in our society, or how the power he holds can reinforce racism.

two employees of mine experienced something similar a few years ago working close to the police station, detained for several hours for being brown and suspected by a white neighbor. of course the police need to pay attention to car vandalism, and they could also be better at community relations and safety if they understood more about racism.

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Turns out that we already got Chief Weaver's attention. He sent me the following note along with his permission to post it:

I did research the incident and found the following:

Earlier on the evening when the young man was stopped, a Sebastopol resident's car was vandalized in front of his home. The officers said he should call the police if he saw or heard anything suspicious in the future.....
.....I just want you to know what really happened. Race place no part in this matter whatsoever.

Take care,

Jeff Weaver

**podfish** · 07-02-2011 11:32 PM

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

this response from chief weaver is an excellent example of institutional racism..

no, it's a poor example of institutional racism. There are plenty of examples of that - but in this case, he explicitly pointed out why that person was stopped. If you disbelieve him, that's one thing. But he directly addresses why the stop was made, and his explanation is that a witness gave him a description.
There are a zillion examples of institutional racism; there are also many people who believe that there's a "race card" or a "victim card" that's played unfairly. Let's not play into that by refusing to accept a direct response that addresses the question.

**Imagery** · 07-02-2011 11:38 PM

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

This response from Chief Weaver is an excellent example of institutional racism. For him to conclude that race had nothing to do with it when the officer was responding to citizen suspicion of a young mixed race man demonstrates how unaware weaver is about being other than white in our society, or how the power he holds can reinforce racism.

I'm curious, Rossman - how would you handle the situation? Would you as a "victim" or "reporting citizen" like to be questioned by the police about your biases, your racial leanings, the motives why you would point towards someone of mixed race - in order to have your concern taken seriously? What if they feel you are supporting institutional racism by reporting a person of a non-white ethnic origin? Would you like them to simply ignore your complaint?

According to the account written by the police chief, it sounds to me like the citizen came out of his/her house, and saw someone - and pointed the finger. The fact that the "victim" kept the dispatcher updated with information leading to someone - that would lead me to believe that the "victim" was the one pointing the racist finger (if there was one being pointed), and that THEY are the racist to be dealt with.

I think his blanket statement was a misstep - because it doesn't acknowledge the part the "victim" (reporting party) played in the entire incident. His statement that "Race place no part in this matter whatsoever", in my opinion, was meant in the context of the actions of the police officers.

**Dixon** · 07-02-2011 11:47 PM

Yo, Imagery, thanks for your expeditious response to my request for an example of "Whenever someone on this board stands up for the police, they are immediately branded as encouraging a police-state." I can see how the excerpt you presented could be seen as an example of that, and accept it as such, though Cheingrand's use of the terms "Whenever" and "immediately" make his statement so absolutistic that it's unlikely to be true on that account. (In other words, does it really happen every time, and immediately?) But the point is taken.

What I'd hope we all can agree on is that, as with so many issues, it's possible to err on either side here--seeing more police misbehavior than there really is, or seeing less than there is. Let's agree that police brutality, corruption, racism and arrogance are real problems in many (most? all?) communities, possibly including Sebastopol, while also recognizing that not every purported instance of such police misbehavior is a real one. And I think the issue of some sort of citizen oversight of police behavior, rather than trusting all such oversight to other cops, makes a lot of sense in light of the "conflict of interests" issue. Sound good to you?

**Imagery** · 07-03-2011 12:11 AM

I've always known, and acknowledge that there are a few bad apples in any given profession. I realize and acknowledge that racism is, unfortunately, alive and well throughout the United States. This afternoon, as I sat outside the new coffee place on Main Street, watching an interracial couple walk by, I reflected on how far we've come as a society...and realize that we still have a long, long way to go.

Do I believe that the police never do any wrong? Not at all. They're human, and part of being human is to make mistakes. Humans bring biases of their own life experiences to paint their view of what they see when they read threads like this.

Honestly, when I first read the OP, my mind went back to when I was handcuffed, sitting on the curb, spotlight on me for everyone passing by to see...when I had just come from a church gathering. THAT incident (among others) set my bar for "profiling" and "harassment" higher than simply being stopped and asked for an identification.

From having been a Neighborhood Patrol member in the crime-ridden neighborhood in which I lived in Southern California, my mind asked a question about the story. A question like, how many businesses are open (at 11pm) in the downtown area that cater to (or allow) an under 21 crowd? The only businesses that came to mind were Safeway, CVS Pharmacy and Lucky's supermarket. It doesn't really matter, though - the point was that he was simply walking down the street playing his musical instrument and dancing along. He wasn't doing anything illegal.

After hearing the account from both Sabrina and Chief Weaver, I would tend to believe that I'd be asking the RP (a.k.a. vandalism victim) looking for answers from them as to their racial biases and how racist they are.

**rossmen** · 07-03-2011 12:25 AM

i appreciate the response from chief weaver, it seems clear to me that he is reading us:) this is my primary goal in writing on this thread and several others having to do with the spd. i believe him about his department process. you misread him, the resident was not a witness.

i draw meaning from chief weavers use of the word resident. this is important to him in my experience:(

if the question is was the young man racially profiled by the spd then chief weavers response addresses that. i am simply pointing out that writing that "race had nothing to do with the matter" doesn't seem to be true according to weavers account. i just want him to know this.

if i were police chief i would.

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

no, it's a poor example of institutional racism. There are plenty of examples of that - but in this case, he explicitly pointed out why that person was stopped. If you disbelieve him, that's one thing. But he directly addresses why the stop was made, and his explanation is that a witness gave him a description.
There are a zillion examples of institutional racism; there are also many people who believe that there's a "race card" or a "victim card" that's played unfairly. Let's not play into that by refusing to accept a direct response that addresses the question.

**theindependenteye** · 07-03-2011 07:22 AM

>>>this response from chief weaver is an excellent example of institutional racism. for him to conclude that race had nothing to do with it when the officer was responding to citizen suspicion of a young mixed race man demonstrates how unaware weaver is about being other than white in our society, or how the power he holds can reinforce racism.
>>>... of course the police need to pay attention to car vandalism, and they could also be better at community relations and safety if they understood more about racism.

I'm confused. You suggest that police need to pay attention to the resident's complaint, yet state that the cop's attempt to do so was an act of racism. So how should the police have handled this report? Ignore it? Stop *everyone* out on the street within a two-mile radius? Raid the neighboring houses? Would there be fewer charges of "profiling" here if the person had been stopped for being "young" or for being "male"? Does that never happen?

If I were the parent involved, I'd feel as unsettled as the woman in this case. And it's obvious that racism exists everywhere on the planet, including those arenas of Sebastopol that seem to be off the planet. But having spent many years in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Philadelphia, I guess I have an extremely different standard of what constitutes profiling, racism, and police terror.

But my question is serious: if you were the cop responding to this citizen's report, what would you have done differently?

Confusedly--
Conrad

**Ernieman** · 07-03-2011 08:03 AM

I have read and followed the threads regarding the 'racial profilling" incident in Sebastopol. It is very good to have the Chief respond with clarity. (At this time, I assume it is a real response from the Chief and not a hacker intent on mischief! ) As First Vice President of the Santa Rosa- Sonoma NAACP, the NAACP is and was willing to followup on the fact of the case.

For future, reference, the NAACP is still a vital organization and will directly involve itself in issues regarding racism. We prefer written complaints on individual issues. The NAACP has combated institutional racism for over 100 years and will continue to so so in Sonoma County.

Obviously, great strides have been made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in combatting institutional racism in the USA (Yes it still exists.) The police leadership in Sonoma County struggles to balance policing policies and training with an individual officer's action on the street. We have not forgotten Jeramiah Chass and monitor training and policies of the local Departments with respect to cultural training, dealing with the mentally impaired, and policies on lethal force. It is good to have a Chief in Sebastopol that will respond to the public without a huge outcry. It is also good to have a public that monitors the police agencies and maintains a very healthly respect for civil liberties.

Please do not hestitate to contact the Santa Rosa-Sonoma County NAACP for future reference. We meet the second Tuesday at the Steele Lane Community Center. You may reply to this email as well.
Ernie Carpenter

**dysbtwn** · 07-03-2011 09:32 AM

This is a great video from a lawyer explaining why you should never agree to be "interviewed" by the police, ever.

Assert your 5th amendment rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

**rossmen** · 07-03-2011 12:17 PM

without having been there i can't say how i might have responded differently. overall i think the officer did pretty well. my comment was about the chief's report and his conclusion that race had nothing to do with the matter. this is a dangerous assumption for someone in the role of a police chief to make.

if i was chief i would not assume this. i might contact the young man to listen to him directly. i might review the diversity training in my agency. i might be open to dialoging on a community bulletin board. i might explore the options of restorative justice offered to me and my department.

this was a department response to a resident report. besides the officer who made the stop probably the dispatcher was actively engaging with the resident and a supervisor was closely monitoring the situation. i don't think it would be appropriate for any of them or the chief to question the resident directly about possible prejudice. i would want them to hold this as a possibility, in others or themselves, in dealing with something like this.

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>this response from chief weaver is an excellent example of institutional racism. for him to conclude that race had nothing to do with it when the officer was responding to citizen suspicion of a young mixed race man demonstrates how unaware weaver is about being other than white in our society, or how the power he holds can reinforce racism.
>>>... of course the police need to pay attention to car vandalism, and they could also be better at community relations and safety if they understood more about racism.

I'm confused. You suggest that police need to pay attention to the resident's complaint, yet state that the cop's attempt to do so was an act of racism. So how should the police have handled this report? Ignore it? Stop *everyone* out on the street within a two-mile radius? Raid the neighboring houses? Would there be fewer charges of "profiling" here if the person had been stopped for being "young" or for being "male"? Does that never happen?

If I were the parent involved, I'd feel as unsettled as the woman in this case. And it's obvious that racism exists everywhere on the planet, including those arenas of Sebastopol that seem to be off the planet. But having spent many years in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Philadelphia, I guess I have an extremely different standard of what constitutes profiling, racism, and police terror.

But my question is serious: if you were the cop responding to this citizen's report, what would you have done differently?

Confusedly--
Conrad

**scamperwillow** · 07-03-2011 01:10 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

I just wish you'd included the quote in context, as it was a quote from another member here.

He did.

**Imagery** · 07-03-2011 01:23 PM

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

He did.

Thank you so kindly for your comment. It gave me a very good dose of laughter, and you know they say that laughter is good for the soul.

At the time I posted my reply, which you quoted, they had NOT placed it in context (of quoting another member). Podfish did so after reading my post, which I felt gave better context to what was being said.

**"Mad" Miles** · 07-03-2011 03:39 PM

https://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/....html?spref=fb

**Sabrina** · 07-04-2011 01:00 PM

Wow! I take one HOT day off from the computer (you all must've been in air conditioning, or?) and look at all the buzz on this subject since I was here. I love that all this discussion is going on. Here are my thoughts on the Chief Weaver's forwarded comments (appears he's only responding through someone else - or is there another discussion on some other board, elsewhere?).

....Earlier on the evening when the young man was stopped, a Sebastopol resident's car was vandalized in front of his home. The officers said he should call the police if he saw or heard anything suspicious in the future.

Later that evening, the victim heard a loud "bang" near his vehicle. He exited his home, fearing the vandal had returned.

He saw one person in the immediate area; the young man we eventually stopped.

I would really be curious as to whether the victim "saw" an older woman walking down the street, or any different "type" person, would they have considered this to be a suspect. Since it was dark out, I realize that with the common fashions for young men these days, it would be hard to see my son's skin color unless a light shined on him. So without speaking with the victim we will never know how well he could "see" my son. Or did he say, "a young black man just walked by".

He called the police department, provided the young man's description, and guided the officer to the young man by providing updates to the dispatcher

I wonder "what" the description was of my son, and what were the updates? Then Weaver says

The officer responded to the citizen's call and contacted the young man. Not knowing if he was the suspect, a witness, or not involved at all, the officer began the encounter as a 'consensual encounter' rather than a 'detention'; hence, the "Are you okay" comment from the officer.

. Why would the officer not know whether this was a suspect or a witness? Obviously they were considering him at first to be a suspect. First my son says that the officer did not ask him "are you Ok". It was my son who asked the officer if "he" (the officer) was ok, and put his hand on the officers shoulder. This naivete was what scared me, as his parent, because I have heard too many stories of accidents where a police officer may feel under possible attack, and shoot the person or something. My son says that he can't recall the actual words the officer first used, but that he'd had the light shined on him, the officer approached him seeming very nervous and with a feeling that he (the officer) knew all about something going on, and that he thought my son could be a part of it. These words were not spoken, just the feeling my son got. And he said the officer did not ask him if he was ok. When I try to ask my son what exactly was first said, he feels frustrated (and maybe a little embarrassed that this has gone on so long like this on the thread). He doesn't fully understand why some of us feel it is very important, the conduct of police with citizenry, and how important the relationship between all is. He's just awakening to these possibilities for injustice, which hopefully he never has to endure.

After a short conversation (the entire encounter lasted 3 minutes and 18 seconds), the officer determined the individual was not involved and ended the contact.

So, as you can see, the officer didn't select the young man at random (or because of his race) but rather was responding to a citizen's call.

Yes, this holds true to my son's account. But we still have no idea on the "race" factor, so like several others have said, this should not be stated. Also, we don't know if the victim was influenced by the "race" factor. What was the "description" given?

So, as you can see, the officer didn't select the young man at random (or because of his race) but rather was responding to a citizen's call.

It is also notable what the officer didn't do:

He didn't direct the young man to sit on the curb or the patrol car bumper, in keeping with the 'consensual contact' nature of the encounter.

The officer didn't place the young man in a 'restrained denention' (either in handcuffs or in the patrol car).

The officer didn't call for back up and no other officer arrived.

The officer didn't ask permission to search the young man nor did he search the young man.

Basically, the officer did the bare minimum to respond to the citizen's call with minimum inconvenience and discomfort to the young man. Other than not responding at all, he couldn't have really done any less.

These are all true. It is true that they did not go through all of the above, as has happened to others, such as Imagery when he was profiled incorrectly as a young man in LA. I appreciate that there was not further harassment of my son, as there well should not have been.

And, I think the officer was successful in his low key approach, as the young man felt comfortable asking the officer how he was doing (which to me shows he wasn't intimidated). He also told his mother he felt the encounter was a 'joke'.

I would say that the reason my son did not feel intimidated by the officer is because he's been pretty protected and sheltered by his parents, and has not had first hand experience with police intimidation, which is good. He's heard true stories about police intimidation, but has not experienced it first hand, and has a kind of "every human is 'good' deep inside type of approach to people including police. And clearly the officer was not a trouble maker sort of guy, just responding to the call, and found that my son was not a suspect, with just a brief interview. My son did not think the whole thing was a joke, I said he thought the whole thing was funny, especially because the officer seemed so nervous, and because my son knew he did nothing wrong. But what's not funny is what history has shown with racial profiling or any other kind of mistaken identity, such as NAACP member Ernie Carpenter reminds...

Obviously, great strides have been made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in combatting institutional racism in the USA (Yes it still exists.) The police leadership in Sonoma County struggles to balance policing policies and training with an individual officer's action on the street. We have not forgotten Jeramiah Chass and monitor training and policies of the local Departments with respect to cultural training, dealing with the mentally impaired, and policies on lethal force. It is good to have a Chief in Sebastopol that will respond to the public without a huge outcry. It is also good to have a public that monitors the police agencies and maintains a very healthly respect for civil liberties.

Chief Weaver continues,

I just want you to know what really happened. Race place no part in this matter whatsoever.

Well, as far as what "really" happened is always subject to interpretation unless we question everyone involved - victim, officer involved, my son, and maybe a jury to decipher it. We're not going there at this time. As far as Race playing no part of it, only god will know. But too often, in recent history, racially profiling is involved; very often on an unconscious level. Perhaps it was the victim that said "there's a young black man walking down the street!" and it made the dispatch all the more nervous and send an officer out quick. Or maybe the victim only saw a young man with a hood and could not see his color as it was dark. We don't know these sides to the story. Clearly, if my son was the only person walking at that hour, the officer was just responding to the call, and there would not be race involved (unless the victim said "young black man!".

But regardless of whether there was a racially biased element or not to the whole situation, I am still concerned with any possibilities of such, and feel that it should not just be sloughed under the rug as just a routine check. This said, I'm also against "any" kind of profiling or stereotyping of young men etc. I think if the police want to be seen as keepers of the peace there needs to be more done to change there image, so that they too don't have a bad stereotype for them selves either. I have had very good experiences with officers in my neighborhood of Santa Rosa when I've needed to call on them. I know not all cops are bad, and only a one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch.

Well, it's another blasting hot day, and I'm off to the coast or the water or somewhere. I'll be back LATER to see what response there is next.

**someguy** · 07-04-2011 08:00 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:

Wow! I take one HOT day off from the computer (you all must've been in air conditioning, or?) and look at all the buzz on this subject since I was here. I love that all this discussion is going on. ...

Has it occurred to you that maybe the person who called the police in the first place may have been black themselves? Maybe they were white with a black spouse like yourself? Maybe even just plain ol' white without any racist intentions? Why after learning that your original allegations were false, do you just turn slightly and point your finger at someone else based on more assumptions of racism? Don't you think that making these types of baseless allegations (especially in public) are harmful to our community? Take for example your original (false) allegation in your title to this thread... I find that damaging. And now if a victim calls the police and describes a person who they think has done something illegal as black, you claim that to be a racism fueled call. Are we not allowed to describe people as they are? Don't you think that skin color would be an appropriate way for police to identify a suspect in many circumstances? Should they go on height, build and approximate age alone and never bring up the supposed perpetrators race???

Like I said before, this type of speech and thought are responsible for a lot of racial tension that further amplifies the problem of racism on both sides of the fence. It also creates an inhospitable environment for all of us and I wish you wouldn't take part in this type of baseless rhetoric. I also wish that you would apologize to Chief Weaver for your obviously false statement that is the title of this thread. And who knows, you may have, you really have no obligation to say if you did or didn't, I'm only wishing here... To me, the saddest part is that some people obviously have little faith in other people's ability to be good people, just like you know you are deep down. Its sad that some are so paranoid and fear based that they immediately throw out sympathy, empathy, thoughtfulness, and just react, often overreacting. I hope some of us here reading this thread can learn a thing or two.

daynurse · 07-04-2011 08:09 PM

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

It also creates an inhospitable environment for all of us and I wish you wouldn't take part in this type of baseless rhetoric.

**rossmen** · 07-04-2011 08:38 PM

someguy your response to sabrina inspires me to respond to some comments you made about one of my posts. i don't think we were thinking of the same definition of the term institutional racism. you seem to understand this term as overt racially determined policy, such as affirmative action?

i also wonder how you think i would define this term?

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Has it occurred to you that maybe the person who called the police in the first place may have been black themselves? Maybe they were white with a black spouse like yourself? Maybe even just plain ol' white without any racist intentions? Why after learning that your original allegations were false, do you just turn slightly and point your finger at someone else based on more assumptions of racism? Don't you think that making these types of baseless allegations (especially in public) are harmful to our community? Take for example your original (false) allegation in your title to this thread... I find that damaging. And now if a victim calls the police and describes a person who they think has done something illegal as black, you claim that to be a racism fueled call. Are we not allowed to describe people as they are? Don't you think that skin color would be an appropriate way for police to identify a suspect in many circumstances? Should they go on height, build and approximate age alone and never bring up the susposed perpetrators race???

Like I said before, this type of speech and thought are responsible for a lot of racial tension that further amplifies the problem of racism on both sides of the fence. It also creates an inhospitable environment for all of us and I wish you wouldn't take part in this type of baseless rhetoric. I also wish that you would apologize to Cheif Weaver for your obivously false statement that is the title of this thread. And who knows, you may have, you really have no obligation to say if you did or didn't, I'm only wishing here... To me, the saddest part is that some people obviously have little faith in other people's ability to be good people, just like you know you are deep down. Its sad that some are so paranoid and fear based that they immediately throw out sympathy, empathy, thoughtfulness, and just react, often overreacting. I hope some of us here reading this thread can learn a thing or two.

**pbrinton** · 07-05-2011 02:17 AM

Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:

Here are my thoughts on the Chief Weaver's forwarded comments

Sabrina

First of all, I am by no means someone who believes the police can do no wrong, or that they are tireless guardians of our safety. I believe that racial profiling is regularly practiced by the police in this country, and that we are perilously close to becoming a police state. I am shocked and disgusted by the recent spate of killings by police officers, and the fact that the perpetrators are almost never punished, and when they are it is with a slap on the wrist.

Having said all that, I see absolutely no evidence of any of this in this case on the part of the police. I find the chief's account credible. The only factual point you take issue with is the following:

Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:

Why would the officer not know whether this was a suspect or a witness? Obviously they were considering him at first to be a suspect.

Why is this obvious? As you yourself agree, the officer behaved in a restrained manner, not even reacting adversely (as he was in fact entitled to do) when touched. What about his behavior makes it obvious that he considered your son a suspect? I would say his attitude (which, as I say, you do not deny) shows the opposite if anything.

Other than this, your only criticism on anything on the part of the police is the chief's final remark that he just wanted us to know what really happened, and that race played no part in the matter. You say (paraphrasing) that we cannot know for sure what really happened without interviewing everyone involved. This seems to me to be philosphical nitpicking. You do not dispute any of his facts, and that, in my opinion, is what really matters. As for the "race played no part" bit, yes, he should have added "on the part of the police" which is what I am pretty sure he meant.

The only person you make any case at all of racism against is the original caller, referred to as the victim. But even here, you do not have any factual basis for the accusation, only speculation. Maybe he said this, maybe he said that. And let us suppose that he did say something like "There is a young black man walikng down the street; you should check him out" to the police dispatcher. How is this racial profiling? It is a simple statement of fact. Your son fits that description. If there had been multiple people on the street and he had only mentioned the black one, orsingled him out for suspicion in some way, then in the absense of other supporting information, that might in fact be a case of profiling. But your son was the only person on the street at the time.

Your son was questioned because he was walking near where a robbery had recently taken place, not because he was black. Even if he was not the perpetrator, he might have seen something, and no matter what his color it was quite legitimate to check him out. When the officer was satisfied that he was not the perpetrator, and did not know anything about the crime, he let him continue on his way. It seems by your account that he suffered no harm, either physical or emotional.

You say that your son was not afraid of the officer because you have sheltered and protected him from the harsh facts of street life (again I paraphrase). I would suggest you are not doing him a favor in this respect. You owe it to him for his own safety to make him understand how to behave towards the police so as to not put himself in danger. It is odd to me that you are so determined to find fault with the police, yet you allow your son to think it is safe to touch an officer.

You assert baldly in the title of the thread (a powerful message that accompanies every post in the thread) that your son was racially profiled. Not "might have been" but was. This is a direct accusation against the Sebastopol PD. In spite of all the sound and fury this thread has produced, you have failed to support this assertion. Instead you fall back on pure speculation about the victim, and the argument that even if it did not happen in this particular case, it is happening all over and we should be aware of it. But that would not have made such a snappy title.

In my opinion you owe the Sebastopol PD an apology.

Patrick Brinton

**Barry** · 07-05-2011 10:22 PM

Let's bring this thread back on topic of racial profiling and related local issues (ie policing). Whether or not Columbus was a Mensa member, etc. is welcome to continue in WaccoTalk. Thanks!

**rossmen** · 07-06-2011 10:39 AM

while chief weavers account is credible, and i assume accurate, it is by no means complete. there could very well have been racial profiling. the title of this thread doesn't include the spd. and the residents car was vandalized, not robbed.

thanks for sharing your opinion. i appreciate sabrina hanging in here with a discussion so deeply personal, her son's health and safety, and important, how we are all policed.

**Barry** · 07-06-2011 03:24 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Let's bring this thread back on topic of racial profiling and related local issues (ie policing). Whether or not Columbus was a Mensa member, etc. is welcome to continue in WaccoTalk. Thanks!

Those posts have been split off to a new thread in WaccoTalk called "Columbus, Slavery, & Class War"

**Sabrina** · 07-06-2011 04:45 PM

I am definitely due a reply here, as I really didn't resonate too well with the comments made by a few above.

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

You assert baldly in the title of the thread (a powerful message that accompanies every post in the thread) that your son was racially profiled. Not "might have been" but was. This is a direct accusation against the Sebastopol PD. In spite of all the sound and fury this thread has produced, you have failed to support this assertion. Instead you fall back on pure speculation about the victim, and the argument that even if it did not happen in this particular case, it is happening all over and we should be aware of it. But that would not have made such a snappy title.

I don't feel the need to change the subject title nor apologies to anyone, as pbrinton suggested. I don't know Chief Weaver, nor live in Sebastopol, nor hold anything personal against Chief Weaver, the Sebastopol PD, nor the young officer who approached my son. I simply was an upset parent, knowing the possible tragedies that have come at the hands of police (yes, police in general have developed a negative stereotype thanks to a few bad apples ruining the whole bunch with such known facts as the existence of racial profiling, and killing the wrong people, etc) such as Oscar Grant and Jeremiah Chas, and just today I got this article forwarded to me reporting examples of encounters of mistaken identity by police, the opening part of the story ending in the mistaken murder of a child: Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of the US Police Force. Yes, it is very hard to "prove" racial profiling or racism period without tons of witnesses, or blatant findings that were put in writing. That is exactly WHY it is a good idea to have a "flashy" title that gets attention. Although, I was not intending to HAVE a flashy title that got attention; I had NO idea that this thread would draw so much attention, and frankly I'm pleased that it's had 1793 views now, as I write. To me, it's all about Education, communication, and awareness. I have NO problem apologizing when an apology is due. So far I've not heard Police Weaver say his feelings were hurt. If he did, or the victim, or the young officer, I would probably apologize that all of the talk hurts their feelings, or anyone's for that matter, but NOT apologize for the subject at hand. It is NOT my topic alone, but many many many people feel these issues should be made aware of and openly spoken about. Perhaps, like many things in the western part of the US, (especially Sonoma County or Sebastopol for that matter) we will be the leaders in a new kind of peace officer - one who practices intuitive training and breathing techniques to calm the adrenalin rushes associated with terror - perhaps trained in Aikido - and back to the old fashioned shooting to stop the culprit vs. shooting to kill.

My fears are partly about Racism, and the militarization of the police force as well (it's the militarization that I feel brings in the adrenalin rushed fear of people who (perhaps have been dummed down.) as was it Day nurse who said that? I can't find the exact quote. I'm not saying Sebastopol has tanks (I don't know) -

I'm also certainly NOT saying all cops are bad. Heck no. Many are out there who really want to help. Last night I was missing my lovely son (who's so much in question here) in Healdsburg. The Healdsburg police Dept. was extremely helpful even though they did not need to do a thing since he was definitely not qualified to be a missing person. The two officers I was speaking with in the dept. were both actually people of color. They were very nice, and very helpful.

**pbrinton** · 07-07-2011 12:25 AM

Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:

I don't feel the need to change the subject title nor apologies to anyone, as pbrinton suggested.

To save space I will not quote the whole post.

We could certainly get into a discussion of the militarization of the police, and I am sure we would agree on a great deal, and Barry would gently move us over to WaccoTalk. That is not what this thread, and particularly its title, are about. You have accused the Sebastopol PD of unprofessional behavior which you have failed to substantiate. Even granting everything else you say, this fact remains. Nowhere in your post do you claim that the accusation you made was in fact true. If I understand your argument correctly, you claim that it is legitimate to say something untrue in the title of the thread because that way you get more attention, though your were not in fact seeking attention. I would take issue with both parts. If you have made a public accusation that turns out not to be true, then the only ethical course is to withdraw it and apologise. And if you were not seeking attention, then you would not be posting on WACCO about it.

The bottom line here is that to substantiate your accusation you have to show that your son was treated differently because of his color than an otherwise identical white kid, doing the same thing in the same place. You have not described any mistreatment that he suffered, so it is hard to see how the white kid could have been treated any better. Perhaps you are saying that the white kid would not have been stopped and questioned? This seems highly unlikely to me. In fact I would have an easier time believing that he was profiled for being a young male than for being black. Though I hasten to add, for fear of fueling the fire here, that I do not think that that happened either. I think that it was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances for the officer to check your son out, and even you cannot point to anything he did wrong.

Patrick Brinton

**joehogan** · 07-07-2011 08:16 AM

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

If you have made a public accusation that turns out not to be true, then the only ethical course is to withdraw it and apologise.

The bottom line here is that to substantiate your accusation you have to show that your son was treated differently because of his color than an otherwise identical white kid, doing the same thing in the same place. unlikely to me. In fact I would have an easier time believing that he was profiled for being a young male than for being black
Patrick Brinton

I believe it is a widely accepted fact that all across the USA, people are profiled by police. An internet search will provide many examples. Thirty years ago, I myself, and hundreds of other long haired young men were profiled by the Sebastopol police. The Sebastopol police had a very strong reputation as profilers of longhairs back then. I believe that this profiling was widely supported by many Sebastopol residents who didn’t appreciate the influx of hippies. Before that, I grew up in a fairly gritty inner city neighborhood, so I was well accustomed to being stopped and questioned by police several times a day for no explained reason.

There are numerous lawsuits around the country about police profiling black or brown drivers. Police profile. It’s one of their tools. For them, it’s probably very useful and efficient. Of course police deny this, because it’s illegal. So when a police chief explains something that happened on the street, he may be correct, or he may be covering his ass. One is probably as likely as the other. Maybe the citizen who called the police was the profiler, I don’t think we’re every going to know that either. But Pbrinton should know that young males, especially young black males are profiled every two minutes in the USA. When police shoot a black teenager in Sebastopol, that’s profiling also. If Jeremiah Chass was white, he’d have had a much better chance of survival. This causes mothers of young black men to worry. Yes, the Sebastopol police chief gave a reasonable explanation of the situation. Is it the truth? Who knows? But, more likely than not, police profile. Maybe the thread should be renamed, “Was my son racially profiled in Sebastopol?”

Joe Hogan

**pbrinton** · 07-07-2011 11:11 AM