No profiling, hate crime in Mashpee
Published Cape Cod Times Newspaper Editorial Page- My View By RODNEY COLLINS
August 25, 2009
The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." In the case of the Roche Brothers grocery store incident that was recently publicized, facts need to be put in perspective.
A woman entered Roche Brothers in Mashpee and placed meat in her shopping cart. The store manager observed the same woman check out without the meat but with a bag. These facts are undisputed. The woman was approached not because of the color of her skin but rather her conduct. It could be reasonably construed as raising suspicion. The manager approached the woman and made a simple inquiry. She was not accused of shoplifting.
The woman demanded the Mashpee Police Department be called and an officer responded. It was determined that the woman had placed the meat back in the cooler prior to leaving the store. The situation was blown out of proportion.
The woman wanted to file a complaint against the manager. The officer inquired as to whether the woman was assaulted. She said no. Subsequently, the woman stated to the press that she was assaulted. She submitted a written statement to the police department indicating that she was "almost knocked to the ground." The woman's version of what happened had conflicting details. As a result, there were no credible grounds to file any criminal complaint.
I was contacted by the press regarding the incident as a result of the woman claiming some form of racial profiling. In my 29 years of law enforcement, the actions of the woman were consistent with a person in pursuit of civil litigation and not facts, and I expressed such opinion.
Then John Bangert, who heads the Harwich Chapter of "No Place for Hate," claimed that the Mashpee Police Department was neglectful by not providing a hate crime form to this woman. Bangert failed to recognize that the form in question is filed by the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction and only after a sustained hate crime has been reported. Bangert further drew premature conclusions without any factual basis from a competent investigation. This suggests bias, the very element he is supposed to detect and prevent.
Moreover, since this incident occurred in Mashpee and not Harwich, I never understood his involvement anyway.
Then another writer defended the "character" of the woman in question while failing to point out none of this would even be necessary if the woman had not made such a public spectacle of this matter. The writer suggests that I took the word of a "white man" over a "black woman." That is factually untrue. I evaluated the inconsistencies in statements of the "black woman" and the credible report of a Native American officer and concluded no "hate" element existed.
The writer also referred to the "humiliating" experience of this woman being confronted in front of so many witnesses. If this is true, then why hasn't one of those witnesses come forward to verify the so-called "accused" account? The writer doesn't hesitate to express her opinion but condemns me for doing the exact same thing. This hypocrisy is typical today but when opinion has absolutely no reasonable basis it becomes irresponsible.
Then the writer suggests that I was insensitive by expressing an opinion because the so-called "accused" has been diagnosed with cancer, as if I had knowledge of it when I made my original statement. Having a mother who died from cancer and a father who is battling it, I don't need any counsel on the impact of cancer.
If a "hate" element existed in this case as has been suggested, I would be the first to advocate appropriate charges. I worked closely with current New Hampshire Attorney General Mike Delaney and then Attorney General Phil McLaughlin to file the first hate crime homicide charge in the state of New Hampshire's history. In fact, I was complimented by Anti-Defamation League for the manner which I handled the case.
However, when no such element exists as in this case, I am not going to manufacture something to appease a distorted perception of reality.
The bottom line is that decisions relative to the Roche Brothers incident had nothing to do with race but rather a woman's conduct, conflicting statements and a store manager's arguable reasonable suspicion. The facts did not support the complainant's claims. There was no bias linked to a protection by law. There was no "accusation" but rather a brief inquiry based upon an observation.
Rodney Collins is chief of the Mashpee Police Department. His email is:rcollins@mashpeepd.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Racial profiling is an improper and illegal practice based on the mistaken belief that certain ethnic groups are more likely to shoplift than others. Because of this, misguided store employees will focus their surveillance time on the customer's... “color” rather than “conduct”. Racial bias can blind store personnel and cause them to monitor only the ethic minorities and ignore the real source of their inventory losses. Racial profiling eventually leads to a pattern of false theft accusations, wrongful detentions, and harassment when no real probable cause exists. The result is that a particular ethic group will be made to feel like they can't be trusted and are unwelcome in the store. African Americans call it "shopping while black". Unless the wrongful conduct is corrected by management, civil rights violations will occur and false arrest lawsuits will follow and sorely damage the reputation of the retailer.
Post a Comment