1) Black Man 2) Red Shirt 3) At Store: Did White Cops Have a Lawful Basis to Stop Alton Sterling? [we are all Targeted - no need for details such as height, weight, build, complexion, age, hair length, hair style, etc]

Public Enemy. Although few particulars have been released - according to Baton Rouge police at an unknown time an anonymous man called 911 to report that a black man selling music CD’s outside the Triple S Food Mart on North Foster Drive, who was wearing a red shirt and had threatened him with a gun. Apparently when the man called he was no longer in any danger. Evidently, the caller gave no other information. So, the white cops were looking for a Black man with a red shirt hanging around the store. The black man had allegedly committed a felony threat and may have been armed (gun possession is legal in Louisiana). [MORE]  

When the two officers arrived about 12:35 a.m. at the store the 911 caller was not present. On seeing a black man (Sterling) with a red shirt the cops immediately confronted Mr. Sterling and ordered him to stop and answer questions. Sterling stopped. At that time he was not free to go which means he was legally detained or seized [within the meaning of the 4th Amendment]. 

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and the person detained is involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion. With regard to an anonymous tip, the Supremes have said that apart from the tip the officers must have a reason[s] or facts to suspect an individual of illegal conduct AND police must have predictive information that can be corroborated. [MORE] and [MORE]. The Court has specifically said that an anonymous tip about alleged gun possession by itself will not justify a stop and frisk. [MORE]

In evaluating the legality of the stop all that matters is what the cops knew and what they saw at the time of the stop; that is, the first hand knowledge the police had in the present moment of the stop. A court will only consider what an officer observed or knew at the time of the stop. What cops subsequently learned from records checks, court records or from the media is not relevant to a 4th Amendment analysis. 

Here, the police acted on the basis of an anonymous complaint who had no personal face to face contact with police. Cops had no basis to know whether the information was reliable or honest. Prior to engaging Sterling, the cops did not talk to anyone else on the scene, such as the store manager (the owner of the store had no knowledge of an argument outside his store that led to the initial 911 call.). The cops had no idea of whether anyone else had heard the alleged threats or had seen a gun. They also had no information about the gun to know whether the caller saw an actual gun or just heard a threat about a gun. 

Upon approach the cops did not see a firearm or a funny bulge in the pants and Sterling did not make any unsual or threatening moves. Importantly, no emergency was going on, the victim was not present and Sterling was not engaged in criminal activity when cops arrived. Apparently when the police approached Sterling he did not run, back up or hide anything. In other words there was no consciousness of guilt. The cops also did not witness any predictive conduct based on information the caller provided - that is, apparently the police did not see Sterling selling any CD's or arguing with anyone. 

The information that was corroborated involved only innocent conduct - 1) black man - 2) with red shirt - 3) at store. Such information was also endlessly vague b/c it could fit the description of countless people each and any day. That is, the police had no other details from the anonymous caller such as height, weight, build, complexion, age, hair length, hair style, distinguishing characteristics, etc. At the time of the initial stop by cops, Sterling was not free to go and the cops had no warrant - based on this limited info and all the surrounding circumstances, this initial stop was unlawful within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. [And when the white cop tackled Sterling he was clearly under arrest. At that point in time what crime did the cops observe him commit - what was he under arrest for?]  

However, in reality such rules rarely apply to Blacks & Latinos. The 4th Amendment is just words on paper to us. In the system of white supremacy white prosecutors, judges and other governmental servants ratify or enable police conduct that amounts to various movement restrictions and identification measures. Basically, in a racist system of vast unequal power the Government can stop Blacks & Latinos whenever they want to. To whites, the means justify the result -  which is the opposite of purpose of the 4th Amendment. Cops would never get away with with doing this shit to white folks.

Mind as the Mediator. A mind that is filled with belief is a mind which can project anything according to that belief.' [pdf] White folks see what they want to see when Blacks are in sight. [Racist whites view Black males as inherently criminal and engage in various forms of self deception when they are in the presence of people of color.] The bullshit in their minds prevents them from seeing what is real. Would the white cops have this kind of reaction formation to a white man wearing a red shirt?  When those white cops saw Sterling and when many whites watch the videos no doubt they see a Black male - which to them is external phenomenon that triggers jealously, hatred and fear. The mere presence of a Black male is enough to water these seeds of anger and ignorance that are just below the surface with whites. These 2 white cops, fellow white cops, white prosecutors, white puppeticians running for office, white controlled media and white judges & jurors will see what they want to see in order to justify a white cop's right to practice white supremacy/racism.