Resisting Arrest; Charlena Michelle Cooks

[I'mTheFather]

The whole thing could have and should have been avoided.

The woman who called the police worked at the school and the woman she called about has a child attending the school. Ms. Cook's name could have been easily determined by escorting the the employee into the school and asking office personnel for the name of the other woman. Or, the officer could have allowed Cook to go back into the school, as she wanted to do, and then ask at the office. There was no reason for what was done to her.

That was absolutely outrageous.

 

[CdwJava]

To be fair, all because the complainant works at the school and Ms. Cooks has a child at the school does not necessarily mean that they can identify her. Since the original complainant did not identify the woman by name or indicate she knew her when the officer said he was going to try and get Ms. Cooks name, it stands to reason that she was not going to be easily identified. I work at a school and have worked at schools on and off all my adult life, and while children might be easily identifiable, parents are less so - especially since so many children do not have the last names of their parents and many parents are not actively involved in their children's education such that they become known to school personnel.

As I previously wrote, there was no obvious legal reason that would justify the compelling of Ms. Cooks name, nor was there an easy way to determine it. As I mentioned, *I* would have asked the employee if the woman was not welcome on the property and, if so, I would have informed her that she had to leave. If she returned to a vehicle, then I would have been able to obtain the license plate info. While not necessarily in the name of the woman, it would be a place to start and the school could seek to take further action against the parent (such as banning her from the property) should they choose. ... of course, if I was REALLY desperate to find out her name, I might follow the car when it left, pull it over if it was observed committing a VC violation, and then obtain her ID through the traffic stop. That's a long way to go for ID, but, it would have been an option.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Admittedly, I don't know how CA schools handle things, but in many schools these days, visitors to the school must sign in at the office before proceeding anywhere in the school. Cooks said in one article that she frequently attends breakfast with her daughter at the school. If that's the case, office personnel should know her. And if they didn't? Then take the license plate number, though I don't even know why that would be necessary. There was nothing to report.

As far as the kid not knowing the parent's name, well, the school has registration records. If they knew the child's name, they can figure out the parent's name. That's directory information and not subject to FERPA.

At any rate, my point is that the police mishandled this from the start. Cooks was waiting for them in the parking lot. She can be seen standing on the sidewalk when the officer pulled into the lot. He even asked her if she was the one who called. She stood there waiting. He overreacted to a very simple situation, and I'm glad the ACLU is involved.

 

[I'mTheFather]

I didn't see your edit before posting, but I agree with you on how it could have been handled. Frankly, I think it's a little scary that the officer escalated the situation to an arrest.

 

[CdwJava]

Admittedly, I don't know how CA schools handle things, but in many schools these days, visitors to the school must sign in at the office before proceeding anywhere in the school.

They are supposed to, but, this sounds as if it happened while Crooks was dropping her child off. Dropping a child off does not require registering at the office.

Cooks said in one article that she frequently attends breakfast with her daughter at the school. If that's the case, office personnel should know her. And if they didn't? Then take the license plate number, though I don't even know why that would be necessary. There was nothing to report.

She may attend breakfast, but if the officers did not know her, and the school employee in the parking lot didn't know her, it'd be hard to ask around about a black woman ... unless she's the only black mom at the school. And since Barstow's population is about 15% black, it is unlikely that she is the only black mom at the school.

As for a name, that's what we do - we gather names and information. When we can get one, we get it. There may not be a crime report, but, a CAD entry, a field interview, or even an incident report might have to be generated depending on the nature of the call and agency policy.

As far as the kid not knowing the parent's name, well, the school has registration records. If they knew the child's name, they can figure out the parent's name. That's directory information and not subject to FERPA.

And they knew the kid's name ... how? Again, the school employee in the lot did not mention a child's name and may not be able to recognize the child.

You seem to assume that every school employee might know every child or parent on sight. Even in a small school like the 450 student elementary school near me it is impossible for any one employee to either know all the students or their parents. It really is not that easy.

At any rate, my point is that the police mishandled this from the start. Cooks was waiting for them in the parking lot. She can be seen standing on the sidewalk when the officer pulled into the lot. He even asked her if she was the one who called. She stood there waiting. He overreacted to a very simple situation, and I'm glad the ACLU is involved.

The ACLU is involved because they see $$$ signs for themselves. This is really little more than a typical unlawful arrest and excessive force beef and money would eventually be forthcoming from this no matter what legal team was involved. I think the ACLU may feel they have been left out of the loop in the big money national headline cases recently, so when this popped up they leapt on it. This will result in an out of court settlement in about a year for an undisclosed sum, likely discipline or re-training for the officer or officers involved, and a lot of egg on someone's faces. And, even though Ms. Crooks had no lawful right to resist arrest - even if there was no probable cause to make the arrest - it is unlikely the DA will pursue the matter.

 

[I'mTheFather]

They are supposed to, but, this sounds as if it happened while Crooks was dropping her child off. Dropping a child off does not require registering at the office.


She may attend breakfast, but if the officers did not know her, and the school employee in the parking lot didn't know her, it'd be hard to ask around about a black woman ... unless she's the only black mom at the school. And since Barstow's population is about 15% black, it is unlikely that she is the only black mom at the school.

As for a name, that's what we do - we gather names and information. When we can get one, we get it. There may not be a crime report, but, a CAD entry, a field interview, or even an incident report might have to be generated depending on the nature of the call and agency policy.


And they knew the kid's name ... how? Again, the school employee in the lot did not mention a child's name and may not be able to recognize the child.

You seem to assume that every school employee might know every child or parent on sight. Even in a small school like the 450 student elementary school near me it is impossible for any one employee to either know all the students or their parents. It really is not that easy.


The ACLU is involved because they see $$$ signs for themselves. This is really little more than a typical unlawful arrest and excessive force beef and money would eventually be forthcoming from this no matter what legal team was involved. I think the ACLU may feel they have been left out of the loop in the big money national headline cases recently, so when this popped up they leapt on it. This will result in an out of court settlement in about a year for an undisclosed sum, likely discipline or re-training for the officer or officers involved, and a lot of egg on someone's faces. And, even though Ms. Crooks had no lawful right to resist arrest - even if there was no probable cause to make the arrest - it is unlikely the DA will pursue the matter.

We clearly have very different views on the situation, and I could rebut everything you've said. But there's no point in doing so. However, there was another, better way to handle the situation. The police officers' actions were atrocious.

 

[CdwJava]

We clearly have very different views on the situation, and I could rebut everything you've said. But there's no point in doing so. However, there was another, better way to handle the situation. The police officers' actions were atrocious.

I never said I approved of how it went down.

As far as rebutting everything I've said ... well, let me see, I work in CA, I've worked as an SRO, I AM a teacher, I work in a small community similar to Barstow, and I can tell you there is no magical way to identify a parent dropping off a child in a parking lot. The police gather information - that means, we ask people for their names. While there is no crime report, we DO gather information. Why? because it may be relevant later on, or if there are future incidents. It's how we gather info to solve crimes. It's also how we discover wanted criminals. ... News flash: Wanted people don't have neon signs on them saying they are wanted - we find them very often through innocuous means such as traffic collisions or other incidents.

As I also mentioned, there were other means to try and obtain her identification or some means of identifying her (her car being the easiest one) and there was no apparent legal reason to compel identification and no apparent probable cause for an arrest.

As for the force used, I'm not going to try and explain the reasons why force is used or what tactics might be employed other than to say that the application of force is never pretty. We are expected to use force at times, and there's no pretty or nice way to do it. It will ALWAYS look bad on video. Until people learn to voluntarily comply or we develop mind control rays, the police will have to use force to control resisting subjects.

 

[TigerD]

I just watched the video.
I have no problem with the officer's actions.
The officer was polite throughout the encounter.

In viewing this I think Ms. Cook's problems began when she introduced race into the situation and then when she walked away from the officer. The officer was speaking with her. She was not free to leave. He even cautioned her and told her to stop.

TD

 

[CdwJava]

I agree that she was not free to leave and that a detention was warranted, but, an arrest for failing to provide ID was not. Now, they might be able to articulate an arrest for attempting to leave the detention ... not that I think that the DA will file, given the circumstances. The department may be able to articulate a valid arrest on that basis. We shall see.

 

[single317dad]

I disagree that pregnancy should be treated as a magical "get out of trouble free" card. I have several ultra-progressive friends who regularly lament the wage gap, which, if it exists at all, exists primarily due to women as a whole needing time off work for child-rearing. Those people believe that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently than a man just because she needs to be absent from work for months at a time to birth and raise children. Then those same people, in the same breath, will posit some theory like this, that a pregnant woman should be treated differently in some other situation. Well, which is it? Different or not?

If the takedown is within department guidelines and doesn't unduly threaten the safety of the suspect, I have no problem with it.

 

[CdwJava]

I disagree that pregnancy should be treated as a magical "get out of trouble free" card.

Having been assaulted by pregnant women, let me say that they can and do have the capability to harm others. Prgenant does not render them harmless, nor does it make them suddenly fragile.

I have several ultra-progressive friends who regularly lament the wage gap, which, if it exists at all, exists primarily due to women as a whole needing time off work for child-rearing.

There is an element of truth to this argument, sure.

Those people believe that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently than a man just because she needs to be absent from work for months at a time to birth and raise children. Then those same people, in the same breath, will posit some theory like this, that a pregnant woman should be treated differently in some other situation. Well, which is it? Different or not?

First off, anyone can claim to be pregnant - it doesn't mean they are. I've had people claim to have cancer who haven't ... people who have claimed to be pregnant, have heart conditions, have a pinched nerve, be suffering a migraine, etc., when they have not. And, as I have mentioned, pregnant does not mean docile or harmless - nor does it mean fragile as an egg.

If the takedown is within department guidelines and doesn't unduly threaten the safety of the suspect, I have no problem with it.

And it may well have been. And sometimes, people go down even when that was not the intent. As I mentioned, force is not pretty, and the application of force probably does not go the way they teach it in the academy 4 out of 5 times it is applied. I am still to this day shocked when things go as well as theory says they should when dealing with a resisting suspect.

 

[I'mTheFather]

The charges against Cooks were already dismissed. Barstow just recently paid a settlement for arresting 2 brothers who refused to show ID.

 

[I'mTheFather]

I disagree that pregnancy should be treated as a magical "get out of trouble free" card. I have several ultra-progressive friends who regularly lament the wage gap, which, if it exists at all, exists primarily due to women as a whole needing time off work for child-rearing. Those people believe that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently than a man just because she needs to be absent from work for months at a time to birth and raise children. Then those same people, in the same breath, will posit some theory like this, that a pregnant woman should be treated differently in some other situation. Well, which is it? Different or not?

I'm speechless.

 

[CdwJava]

The charges against Cooks were already dismissed. Barstow just recently paid a settlement for arresting 2 brothers who refused to show ID.

Doesn't mean they lacked probable cause to make the arrest (and if it was based on the failure to show ID, then they DID lack PC), but, I'm not surprised as the DA probably doesn't want to get in the middle of this.

Ultimately, as I mentioned, this will result in an out of court settlement - and a contribution to the ACLU - in about a year.

 

[Ladyback1]

I disagree that pregnancy should be treated as a magical "get out of trouble free" card. I have several ultra-progressive friends who regularly lament the wage gap, which, if it exists at all, exists primarily due to women as a whole needing time off work for child-rearing. Those people believe that a woman shouldn't be treated any differently than a man just because she needs to be absent from work for months at a time to birth and raise children. Then those same people, in the same breath, will posit some theory like this, that a pregnant woman should be treated differently in some other situation. Well, which is it? Different or not?

If the takedown is within department guidelines and doesn't unduly threaten the safety of the suspect, I have no problem with it.

Wow! Just WOW!

(the wage gap exists, and not because "women as a whole needing time off work for child-rearing")