Here we go again........

[Guest TankerHC]

Cops sent in a white police informant to a black business owners business, business owners security camera's caught the informant placing crack cocaine on the business owners counter, cops arresated the business owner, who is now filing a lawsuit. People are claiming racism. Somehow, I dont think they are going to be able to deny that it isnt, its right there on video.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/25/shock-undercover-police-agent-caught-on-tape-seemingly-planting-drugs-on-ny-business-owner/

[c.a.willard]

Not seeing the racism there.  Targeting of businesses like this typically only come after several reports from the local community of possible illicit activity.  The arrest was obviously wrong given the factors that we know after the fact.  But until evidence is offered that's contradictory.  I am going to make the assumption that police did not tell the informant to plant anything.  The informant likely did it on his own acting out of his own self interest. 

 

That gets into the entirely separate issue of how police should go about dealing with informants and their use/misuse.  Given the choice between jail/prison and helping the police many will choose helping police.  And when your cooperation is evaluated solely upon the outcome ie  did you give us the information we want to see (regardless of its accuracy) you create an environment where things like this are an almost guaranteed outcome. 

 

Informants are an invaluable tool especially in narcotics interdiction as they allow you to have access to people and information that you could not possibly gather independent of their use.  Their use on the other hand needs to be extremely limited in scope. 

 

 

With all that being said, i think their should at minimum be an independent review to determine if the officers involved were in any way responsible for the informants actions and if they were they should be held liable for any damages done to the business owner.

[TripleDigitRide]

I've somehow been unlucky enough to know two informants during my younger years. Both were drug users and/or dealers who were paying off their debt to society by being narcs for police departments. Both would brag about how easy it was to manipulate the police, because there was never any video of the transactions, only an audio recording device. They could easily keep some of the drugs or money for themselves, and could easily distort the audio by discreetly covering the microphone, blaming it on something else. They were the only eyes on the inside, and they apparently were not searched very well before and after the transactions. Never seemed like a legit practice to me.

 

I don't see the race angle, but I'm white.

Edited July 27, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[Guest TankerHC]

Not seeing the racism there.  Targeting of businesses like this typically only come after several reports from the local community of possible illicit activity.  The arrest was obviously wrong given the factors that we know after the fact.  But until evidence is offered that's contradictory.  I am going to make the assumption that police did not tell the informant to plant anything.  The informant likely did it on his own acting out of his own self interest. 

 

That gets into the entirely separate issue of how police should go about dealing with informants and their use/misuse.  Given the choice between jail/prison and helping the police many will choose helping police.  And when your cooperation is evaluated solely upon the outcome ie  did you give us the information we want to see (regardless of its accuracy) you create an environment where things like this are an almost guaranteed outcome. 

 

Informants are an invaluable tool especially in narcotics interdiction as they allow you to have access to people and information that you could not possibly gather independent of their use.  Their use on the other hand needs to be extremely limited in scope. 

 

 

With all that being said, i think their should at minimum be an independent review to determine if the officers involved were in any way responsible for the informants actions and if they were they should be held liable for any damages done to the business owner.

 

 

I dont either, saying I dont see how they will argue it when you have a white police informant setting up a black business owner in this racial envornment. Thats why "here we go again". Al has already chimed in.

[c.a.willard]

Cultural perception will always contribute to how the African American community views police activity.  The unfortunate reality is that racism does exist in our society today.  And racially racially discriminating tactics used by police were a very common occurrence not to very long ago.  It causes the African American community to view things from a different perspective than the remainder of society.  Not saying i agree with their assessment of the situation, just i can see how the past effects their views of today. 

 

Arguing it from the police perspective isn't really necessary because it will not change the views of the community involved.  But if i were to argue it my argument would be that a white informant going into a black mans place of business is in no way racial profiling.  However believing that all white people are out to get you is racially profiling.  The community claiming the investigators/informant were racially profiling is in fact being racist in its beliefs because they are treating an individually differently based sole on the color of their skin.

 

it's really a no win argument from the sheriffs position, but would be great if he came out and said that.