-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Cashing a check while black
- Thread starter SolidSnakex
- Start date
I mean, suspicion of fraud doesn't warrant calling the police. They didn't cash the check, which is fine because they couldn't get ahold of the employer, but that's where it should have stopped unless they were certain it was forged.
Then why in the world would you call the police? Calling the cops because someone's boss doesn't answer the phone is insane.
User Banned (permanent): History of excusing racism and inflammatory commentary
What for? Responding to a report that somebody was attempting to commit fraud? Sorting out the issue quickly and peacefully? What do you think the police did wrong in this situation?
Yeah, I had little issue until they called the cops. I worked in banking for several years and the two ID's and fingerprint is standard, as well as calling to verify the check if there's any discrepancy. But calling the cops and only happen if it's a confirmed fraud. Which, this was not. So yeah, I'd say there was more than a little racial bias going on here
handcuff the man and stuff in the back of the car. He was nonviolent and it was a non violent call
Except no fraud took place.
You don't call the cops on a random ass hunch.
You don't handcuff someone on a random ass hunch
You don't treat someone less than human on a RANDOM ASS HUNCH
Calling the cops is irrelevant to how the police behaved and whether they deserve to be fired. It wasn't the police who called the police, they simply responded to a call that they were obligated to.
I'm fairly certain handcuffing somebody while they work out what is going on is standard procedure to make sure no harm will come to the person they're detaining, the police themselves or a member of the public while they're investigating. They didn't have handsight when they arrived, and they had no idea who the person they were sent to investigate was or what he may have been capable of. "Stuffing him in the back of the car" is also fairly charged language that paints it in a negative and forceful light when we have no reason to believe it was handled in such a way.
They didn't seem to treat anybody as less than human. They detained the suspect peacefully, presumably listened to his story and got the information about his employer from him, then called that employer to confirm in the space of a few minutes. Then it seems like he was let go because he hadn't done anything wrong.
Obviously no fraud took place, but that's what the police went there to find out. I certainly don't see anything to warrant the officers deserving to be fired. They were doing their jobs, following orders based on information they had no idea was false, and did so in a way that appeared to be nothing but professional.
Edit: Also it's not a hunch on the police officers' part. Every call from the public could turn out to be false, that doesn't mean they have the luxury as treating them all as false until proven otherwise.
Because by all means this man was trying to cash a forged check. The signature did not match other checks I'd looked at and did not match the original signature card. All evidence I had pointed to a forged check. We could not get ahold of the account owner. If let this slide and he crashes it elsewhere it's on me and I lose my job.
Ok, let's try this again.
There was no need to call the police. AT ALL. The individual was not rude, loud, or dangerous in any way. He went through all procedures that was asked of him, and when that was not sufficient, he left the establishment, PEACEFULLY.
I am not a police officer, but i am fairly sure if it not standard procedure to handcuff every single person you are talking to and stuff them in the back of a squad car. And yes, being "stuffed in the back of a squad car" is fucking accurate. Police cars are NOT spacious, and "stuffing" is pretty much on point.
Man, some of you excusing, rationalizing and defensing this make me outright sick.
The cops absolutely had to show up. They absolutely did not have to use handcuffs or put anyone in the back of the police car.
You're arguing a point that I haven't addressed at all here.
Police equipment is in the car. If the man had in fact been committing fraud and they left him to his own devices, he could have easily run off while the police officer is in the car checking the man's details, calling the employer etc.
Talking to him to get his side of the story is best done in the car, where it's isolated from outside noise and a safe environment for everybody involved.
Considering the stories that have come out in the past involving the police and black men, I don't think that would be a good option.
So if I decide to change my signature one day, you're calling the cops on me?
But that is what happened, and it was resolved without incident.
I'm not sure anyone would want to take that chance with their life.
I'm pretty sure you're protected federally based on KYC policies and procedures. As long as you document any and all discrepancies (assuming you didn't cash the check), you should be ok.
We can just create a new file cabinet for these stories, "Living While Black". This is some of the most mundane stuff black people try to do and the best thought is to call the police as he's leaving? Not cashing a check because you're a new customer without an account or whatever, OK: I've had that happen.
But I'm white, and no one would call the cops on me for that. I'd go and that would be the end of it. And yet, fellow white people apparently have to just go the extra mile in ensuring that black people can't participate in society safely or comfortably because fuck them. Exhausting.
But I'm white, and no one would call the cops on me for that. I'd go and that would be the end of it. And yet, fellow white people apparently have to just go the extra mile in ensuring that black people can't participate in society safely or comfortably because fuck them. Exhausting.
I cannot imagine how fucking crazy it is to try and do something as mundane as cashing a paycheck and winding up cuffed in the back of a police cruiser.
But, I guess that shows how privileged some of us are. The shit minorities put up with is hard for me to even imagine. Fucked up.
But, I guess that shows how privileged some of us are. The shit minorities put up with is hard for me to even imagine. Fucked up.
the checks and fingerprints and shit are standard procedure - what takes it over the top is that the bank never confirmed it as a fraudulent check and couldnt confirm it but still called the cops.
That is the issue. Banks aren't supposed to go all vigilante if they can't proof it without a shadow of a doubt. Once they couldn't get the dude manager then they should of handed the check, said sorry we cant because we can't validate funds unless you wanna open an account, and then let it be.
But no, they went and played Jon law calling the cops, when in fact that is against policy and they thought they knew better. Fuck that.
Is there any chance that calling the cops on him is standard procedure, if they found something wrong with the check?
Otherwise this whole story is just infuriating.
Otherwise this whole story is just infuriating.
Nah. Nope. You're not about to paint this as some type of regular protocol.
They stuffed him into the back of a police car. Handcuffed. Behind his back, no less. And for what? A conversation? The same conversation that could've been had IN THE BANK without consequence. Getting his side of the story could've peacefully happened IN THE BANK, as he was not confrontational, loud, or argumentative. They cuffed and stuffed him because he was black. Period.
Fuck that bank, fuck the teller who didn't do their job thoroughly, and fuck the manager who called the cops on him.
Fucked up
Also, I see some people are saying how the fingerprint part is normal...is this a thing in the USA? I've cashed checks at pretty much every major bank here in canada and never had to provide fingerprints.
Also, I see some people are saying how the fingerprint part is normal...is this a thing in the USA? I've cashed checks at pretty much every major bank here in canada and never had to provide fingerprints.
This branch did have 11 cases of fraud in the last month or so. Dude still deserves an apology.
I've never had to do that. If they asked me to take a fingerprint, I'm walking out of there and I'll find another branch, thank you very mucho!
This x3.
If he gets some crowdsourcing set up for a lawyer I'll chip in.
He deserves some serious payday for having racists endanger his life like that
They put him in the back of the car. I have no reason to believe there was stuffing or force of any kind.
Handcuffs are used to prevent harm coming to the suspect or arresting officers as well as detain somebody and discourage escape attempts. They're a tool the police use to carry out their job safely. I wouldn't be surprised if most uses of handcuffs didn't actually result in arrest. Like I said earlier, they had no idea who this person was or what he may have been capable of. It looks like the only information the police had on him going into the situation was that he attempted to commit fraud and didn't know the police were coming. When you're investigating potentially dangerous people, you can treat them with caution the whole time or only do so if you've been given concrete evidence that the situation warrants it. If police went with the latter, there'd be a lot more criminals on the loose and injured police officers.
I don't know about individual states or police departments, but handcuffing somebody behind their back is generally considered the usual and safest way to do it. When handcuffed from the front, you can still use your hands or pose a threat to some degree, defeating the purpose of the handcuffs. Although, were the handcuffs actually applied behind the back in this case? Nothing in the report suggests it.
Maybe the conversation could have happened in the bank, but I don't think it was necessary for that to be the case. They got his side of the story peacefully either way. Is choosing to have the conversation in the car (where most of their equipment will be) improper conduct that warrants the officers being fired? I don't think so. Did Paul himself consider the police officers to have treated him unfairly? I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case. He seems to rightly place all of the blame on the ones who called the police.
LOL
Are you that banned racist cop's alt account?
This shit is hilarious hahaha
Fire the fucking tellers and anyone else that authorized calling the emergency line because they didn't think a black person should cash a check they large. This shit is rage inducing.
Is this what we're going to do today?
Is this what we're going to do today?
Soooo many over reactions in this thread. If a bank teller thinks it's fraud then yeah call the police. Unless things are different in America that is something you should be arrested for.
The handcuffs sounds like a bit much but that's probably the only thing to take offense at.
The handcuffs sounds like a bit much but that's probably the only thing to take offense at.
I don't get what you mean.
For some reason somebody believed the actions of the police here were actions worthy of being fired. I'm just explaining why the police did what they did in this situation and why it was in fact completely normal.
Showing 2 forms of ID, providing fingerprints and employer information.
Is that something someone attempting to commit fraud would do? Come on. Lets use our brains.
Is that something someone attempting to commit fraud would do? Come on. Lets use our brains.