A rather troubling article...what do you guys think?

[PennyQuilts]

OK. Probably true. But what happened here then? Has this all been, misrepresented? Are the parents covering for their children's illegal activity? Were the cops' watches just set fast? It sounds like these police officers apprehended these kids without any questioning whatsoever and outside of the scope of the law. This should never happen, because, well, now the cops are the suspects. Now they are not trusted and in turn, the security of the whole area is in question. You basically tell good kids to avoid bad areas or situations, because they can get mixed in the bad business whether they are at fault or not. Is that lower brick town is now: a bad place for good kids? This is what this action has created: "it must be so bad there that they have to arrest innocent kids to deter the bad kids from causing problems". Not good.

Unless there was some sort of skirmish or chaotic situation where these cops just couldn't tell fault, then there is no excuse. Their reason for arrest isn't even valid according to reports.

The passage you are quoting wasn't discussing the specific episode that launched this thread. It was addressed to Spartan who was talking about what he learned in highschool about how the police behave. I already said the particular situation with the curfew sounds quite peculiar and I'd like to know what was going on.

[Spartan]

I was using that as a proxy, building on Spartan's post in order to respond. I don't think rich kids can't be thugs but Spartan was making the distinction.

Huh?

[PennyQuilts]

Huh?

And of course, they only throw the book at good kids who aren't really doing anything wrong. If some 16 year old punk wreaks of weed and booze, authorities would just rather pretend that kid doesn't exist. Of course cops would rather screw over harmless kids rather than dealing with an actual problem, because that's not fun.

Okay, fair enough. I shouldn't have said the rich kids. You said the good kids vs. the punks. Sorry about that - I should have checked the wording better.

[Larry OKC]

Huh. I must be reading a different Constitution....my version doesn't mention age. ... That's weird. I keep seeing phrases like "The right of the people" and "No person". Are you seeing anything that says "The right of the people who are at least 18"? Are 16 year olds not considered people?

I understand what you are saying and to a large extent you are correct. However, when the Constitution was written there were many classes of people that weren't included or their rights were restricted. Entire classes of people were considered property to varying degrees (children, women, slaves etc etc etc).

[bornhere]

PennyQuilts, my description of the ordinance is based on conversations with knowledgeable people at the time it was passed. Questions were raised at the time about its enforceability, and situations like the one that happened were discussed. Arresting kids before the curfew hour had actually arrived was never anticipated, but there were discussions about the racial profiling inherent in the way merchants wanted it enforced. My memory also tells me there was a discussion among council members at the time specifically involving the Harkins Theater. Whether it was in writing or not, the understanding was that kids leaving the Harkins would not be subject to the curfew.

[bornhere]

Steve will know the answer to this. Wasn't there specific discussion about kids going to movies at the Harkins when this ordinance was discussed by the council? Is there something written into the ordinance to address the very situation that happened?

[bombermwc]

I know it comes as a shock to you folks, but go ask a lawyer some time about what rights a minor actually has. legally. I think you'd be surprised at how much a minor is subject to things that an adult isn't. No you can't just order some kid around or something, but they do not have the same rights as adults. You may not like that, but that doesn't make it untrue. Sorry if you feel that way.

And if you're picking apart the particulars of my post, then you missed the point. Basically, it's not worth being a dick to an OFFICER (don't call them cops please) just because you think you're right. Just becuase a TSA employee doesn't have the legal authority to make you show them your driver's license, doesn't mean you argue with them about it. Why? Because the altnernative is they make your life hell. And you don't really ever come out of that situation on the winning side...or if you do win, it feels like you've lost.

[BBatesokc]

I know it comes as a shock to you folks, but go ask a lawyer some time about what rights a minor actually has. legally. I think you'd be surprised at how much a minor is subject to things that an adult isn't. No you can't just order some kid around or something, but they do not have the same rights as adults. You may not like that, but that doesn't make it untrue. Sorry if you feel that way.

And if you're picking apart the particulars of my post, then you missed the point. Basically, it's not worth being a dick to an OFFICER (don't call them cops please) just because you think you're right. Just becuase a TSA employee doesn't have the legal authority to make you show them your driver's license, doesn't mean you argue with them about it. Why? Because the altnernative is they make your life hell. And you don't really ever come out of that situation on the winning side...or if you do win, it feels like you've lost.

Your initial statement wasn't that minors didn't have the same rights - your statement was that they didn't have any rights, which is an exaggeration. While minors don't have the SAME rights as adults, they also don't have the same legal obligations or liability either.

However, in general their personal rights are very much protected.

As for questioning authority, I am in complete favor of doing it with caution, confidence and the ability to prove your case in the future to a third party. When more people question cops (have no idea why you think we shouldn't call them that) with more regularity they tend to mind their P's and q's. It also helps if you've got real evidence to present to the local media.

[BDP]

The passage you are quoting wasn't discussing the specific episode that launched this thread.

I know, but this episode actually reinforces the notion of police hassling good kids. I don't know if it was for kicks, but anyone trying to rationalize the situation may come to that conclusion, as unfair as it may be. Basically, if police don't want people thinking they might hassle kids for fun, don't apprehend kids for curfew violation before curfew. If there was something else to this story that gave cause for the police to apprehend these children, then they should have been apprehended for that reason, and if that was the case, you would think that would have been cleared up by now. I know you were speaking in generalities, but the situation we're talking about seems to contradict your contention that stories of cops unjustifiably busting "good" kids is hyperbole. Even if this is a rare incident, you certainly can't say it never happens.

[Jersey Boss]

Would this be a good time to explore the feasibility of a Police-Civilian review board? A board like this could be valuable in providing a fair approach to skirmishes like this as well as provide some impartiality in cracking the blue code when it comes to reining in rouge behavior.

[earlywinegareth]

The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. I mean, there are already bicycle cops that patrol bricktown. They would already KNOW that teenagers routinely come out of the theatre and wait for their rides and not have a problem. Where were they?? It's like OCPD called in the riot squad from some other city to do a sweep.

[RadicalModerate]

After attempting to summarize my thoughts on this 2011 incident--as compared to my personal, semi-indirect experience with "The Police/Related Governmental Facilities" (c. 1975?)--a written account of thoughts that was beginning to resemble a novellette*, I have managed to condense it down to one observation: The Key to this entire conversation is found in the first word of the the first post on this thread: "Nutshell."

Without going into (tedious and obscure) detail please allow me to posit two points:

1) Apparently the 1975 Vintage OKCJailers behind the protective glass at the other end of the elevator have been put out to pasture at The Crisis Center. (Nutshell)

2) Apparently some--maybe 1% or less--of the local Thin Blue Line between Us and Total Chaos (including both Officers and their Supervisors) have been drinking too many "Energy Drinks" in conjunction with watching too many "Cops" reruns and "Vin Diesel" and/or "Vin Diesel as a Law Enforcement Officer" movies.

Please be advised that the above comments are in no way intended to confuse the common sense response to a police officer's "suggestion" to "move along" . . .

(*Available, at no cost to you =)

[PennyQuilts]

PennyQuilts, my description of the ordinance is based on conversations with knowledgeable people at the time it was passed. Questions were raised at the time about its enforceability, and situations like the one that happened were discussed. Arresting kids before the curfew hour had actually arrived was never anticipated, but there were discussions about the racial profiling inherent in the way merchants wanted it enforced. My memory also tells me there was a discussion among council members at the time specifically involving the Harkins Theater. Whether it was in writing or not, the understanding was that kids leaving the Harkins would not be subject to the curfew.

Jim Crow is harsh and I think it does a disservice to equate this sort of thing to a Jim Crow law. The problem with so many people is that they don't understand just how awful certain times were in our history and tend to equate things that are vastly dissimilar - and disrespectful to the people who suffered under true Jim Crow laws. IMO, anyway. If this was what Jim Crow was all about, we'd never even read about it because it would be so insignificant.

[PennyQuilts]

I know it comes as a shock to you folks, but go ask a lawyer some time about what rights a minor actually has. legally. I think you'd be surprised at how much a minor is subject to things that an adult isn't. No you can't just order some kid around or something, but they do not have the same rights as adults. You may not like that, but that doesn't make it untrue. Sorry if you feel that way.

I am a lawyer, specializing in juvenile law. For the most part, I disagree with what you're saying except in certain specific areas.

[PennyQuilts]

I know, but this episode actually reinforces the notion of police hassling good kids. I don't know if it was for kicks, but anyone trying to rationalize the situation may come to that conclusion, as unfair as it may be. Basically, if police don't want people thinking they might hassle kids for fun, don't apprehend kids for curfew violation before curfew. If there was something else to this story that gave cause for the police to apprehend these children, then they should have been apprehended for that reason, and if that was the case, you would think that would have been cleared up by now. I know you were speaking in generalities, but the situation we're talking about seems to contradict your contention that stories of cops unjustifiably busting "good" kids is hyperbole. Even if this is a rare incident, you certainly can't say it never happens.

No one said it never happens.

[Larry OKC]

Steve will know the answer to this. Wasn't there specific discussion about kids going to movies at the Harkins when this ordinance was discussed by the council? Is there something written into the ordinance to address the very situation that happened?

The ordinance was referred to and perhaps quoted @ Council. Don't have the ectual wording handy so maybe Mid or someone can post. There are exceptions written in the Ordinance for those attending events (Thunder) or the Movies, if the parents were just absent to get the car etc

[BDP]

No one said it never happens.

You said:

The notion that police are busting "good" kids for kicks and letting the thugs run free sounds like something a kid would think based on a friend getting hassled. Moreover, kids tend to inflate a cop stopping a kid and telling him to get his butt home to the equivalent of booking him and holding him without bread, water or a chamber pot - perhaps even putting him in a cell with Bubba.

So, I basically pointed out that it happened here and isn't always just the hyperbole of some kid whose friend got harassed, as you suggested.

If the future, I will know not to address you comments specifically, because you might be talking about something else entirely.

[PennyQuilts]

You said:



So, I basically pointed out that it happened here and isn't always just the hyperbole of some kid whose friend got harassed, as you suggested.

If the future, I will know not to address you comments specifically, because you might be talking about something else entirely.

I can see that for some reason, you believe the police deliberately harass good kids and let thugs do what they will, apparently for kicks and apparently on a large, consistent scale. All I can tell you is what I have seen as an attorney practicing juvenile law and I've done that.

[Urbanized]

I'm bumping this thread 10 months after it was first posted. It's interesting how so many people piled onto OCPD in this thread, saying they were being too heavy-handed with their policing in Bricktown, yet now not even a year later many are abusing them for not being aggressive enough, in light of the recent problems related to Thunder Alley and the Reno corridor in Bricktown. Therein lies the crux of this issue.

[kevinpate]

Not sure I follow Urbanized. In the recent instance(s), youth after curfew, harassing others, armed, gun play.
In the instances from this bumped thread, youth before curfew, not harassing anyone, being harassed by police and unlawfully detained. Not even apples and onions. More like apples and gunpowder ... a whole lot like apples and gunpowder actually.

[Spartan]

I think more blame rests with Bricktown and the purveyors of trashy entertainment, which has become the district's m.o., than on any government entity.