Scott Henson’s description of his encounter with police while walking with his granddaughter has received significant attention, as it well should.  What is curious, though not entirely surprising, is how many comments Scott received at his Grits for Breakfast post from people who blamed him, some rather vehemently, for “causing” the problem.

Why?  Because Scott didn’t travel the path of least resistance.

The gist of many commenters is that this problem could have been “avoided” had Scott merely cooperated with police rather than challenged their authority to detain and question him for no better reason than a 911 call was made about a white man walking with a black child.  An early commenter wrote:

Simply informing the officer, upon initial questioning, that you are walking your granddaughter home from the park after an unexpected but enjoyable morning of babysitting. And boy my granddaughter sure does like to pet those cats down the street. Might that have gone a long way to a more civil relationship between police and community. Geez. What an uptight prick.

A later commenter wrote:

C’mon Grits, why don’t you stop being so outraged for a second and look at from the police perspective.

Someone called 911 about a suspicious person with a child. In this age of litigation, the police have to check it out. Imagine if that child had turned up missing? There would be a blog post railing about how the police were too lazy to just make a quick stop and investigate things. Isn’t it better for all parties if the police are protecting and serving?

As for refusing to answer questions, that is your right but it is certainly unusual that a person with a child would refuse to cooperate with the police in this situation. You basically turned a quick interaction into an ordeal because you forced the police to dig deeper.

As for your tired comment about how the police should be catching “real criminals”, your actions are the reason additional cops showed up. Your actions and attitude caused a red flag to go off and additional officers showed up in case things when south. That is for officer safety reasons and is perfectly reasonable.

I don’t expect you to agree with me but attitudes like yours are the reason police get jaded. They were just doing their job but you use it as an opportunity to get on your usual anto-police soapbox. Continue patting yourself on the back for tying up three officers due to your huge ego and problem with authority.

Others agreed.  This presents a comment issue, and as Scott later considers, a problematic choice for the person who finds himself in this situation.  The issue was succinctly raised by this comment :

There’s a difference between “having the right” to do something and it “being right” to do so.

GFB, you had the absolute right to act as you did. But don’t ask others to shed a tear for your inconvenience. Your encounter could’ve been resolved in 30 seconds — heck, the officer might’ve even apologized! — but you’ll never know.

Sometimes, a question is just a question.

Was it wrong to exercise the right to be left alone?  It’s probably true that the encounter would have been over much quicker, and with far less tension, had Scott taken the path of least resistance and just cooperated.  In the interests of protecting his granddaughter from witnessing a confrontational encounter, this might well have been the best choice under the circumstances.

But if everyone takes the path of least resistance, then there is no limit on police encounters, and the right to be left alone becomes a fiction.  Someone has to stand up for this right for it to exist.

Many of the comments came from police apologists, who would expect that all citizens should bow to police simply because they are the cops.  From their perspective, citizens must comply with police or, by definition, the citizen is wrong.  As for the police, they are “just doing their job,” which presents a disturbing notion of what that job involves.

The apologists, and even those who took the position that presumes the police would have been reasonable and understanding if only Scott hadn’t been confrontational, are operating under an assumption that I am unwilling to make.  Far too many people have been cooperative with the police, and have received a less than understanding reaction.  Had Scott been cooperative from the outset, there’s nothing to suggest that they wouldn’t doubt his explanation that he was the grandfather of a black child, and taken him into custody until they could confirm from the mother that he wasn’t kidnapping the child.

Still others suggest that when a child is involved, an excess of caution on the part of the police is justified.  Every parent can appreciate this argument, since none of us wants to see a child harmed or taken.  But when the only factor that seems to suggest anything unusual is a white man with a black child, it strains our sense of justification to the breaking point. 

Beyond the poignancy of Scott’s telling of the story, and the pain of being in the situation, this post really touches on some basic questions of how the police should conduct themselves with citizens and how citizens should conduct themselves with police.

One last concern.  Many commenters noted that this situation arose because someone decided that Scott’s walking with his granddaughter was “suspicious” and called 911, making the caller the source of this confrontation.  This is absolutely true, and reflects the reality that different people have a different level of sensibility as to what constitutes “suspicious” behavior. 

But that puts all of us at risk to the most sensitive, sometimes crazy, person with a telephone.  It’s not up to unduly sensitive, maybe peculiar, even racist, people to dictate who has the right to be left alone.  Any idiot can call 911.  That doesn’t dictate how the police handle the call or the situation. 

There is a reason we train police officers and demand that they use that training properly, so that the lowest common denominator doesn’t control who gets to walk the street unmolested.  The police are responsible for how they conduct interactions with citizens, not the 911 caller.  And citizens are responsible for how they conduct themselves with police.  Don’t fault anyone for conducting themselves in accordance with the freedoms that define America.