[illuminerdy]

> They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him.

No, actually that's not what they decided.

They decided that, before they just walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate without knowing who he was or whether he actually belonged at that property, they would actually do their jobs and find that out that information by doing a simple thing like asking him to identify himself.

I know some people really don't like police officers, but, in the future, you should try to make sure that that dislike doesn't make you completely irrational.

[gspetr]

>SWORN DUTY

If they cannot be sued for a breach of it, do they have it?

SCOTUS opined: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”

(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189

[illuminerdy]

I have no idea why you think what you posted has anything to do with what I said or the interaction that is being discussed. The Due Process clause is not the only source of the state's power to enact laws and regulate the conduct of citizens. The police powers of the government existed long before the Due Process clause was enacted.

But even if you take the position that the police are not REQUIRED to do anything (and I would disagree with that position), that does not mean that they CANNOT do anything. In this case, the police CHOSE (to use a term more suitable to your position) to investigate. And nothing precludes them from choosing to do so. Or do you take the position that the police are neither required to, nor can they choose to investigate when called?

[TomSwirly]

> walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate

No, police have no "sworn duty" to investigate - you literally made this up out of your head.

“I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the duties of (state position) of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas, so help me God.”

"I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of ______________________ according to the best of my ability and perform my duties in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York."

They're all like this.

----

No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point.

[illuminerdy]

> "I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of..."

So I assume those "duties" they're referring to don't include investigating when they are assigned a call. Perhaps you think "duties" just refers to sitting in their car eating donuts?

> "No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point."

Again, you have to pay attention to the actual facts when you participate in these discussions.

The police were not just driving down the street and, upon seeing a black man watering some flowers, say to themselves "he must be up to no good". They were specifically CALLED by a neighbor to the property to investigate a suspicious person on their neighbor's property (you know, the typical 'looking out for your neighbor' thing). Your position seems to be that the police should not have done anything. Simple looked at him, shrugged their shoulders and walked away.

Because that's exactly what you would want the police to do if YOU were away and your neighbor saw someone on your property and called the police to investigate. You'd absolutely want them to not find out who that person was or why he was on your property.