Body cam video catches Barstow cops slamming black pregnant woman to ground, letting white woman go free

Officials with the city of Barstow, California insisted this week that officers had acted properly when they used force to arrest a pregnant woman who refused to show them her identification, even though the charges were later dismissed. In police body camera video obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), an officer is responding to an apparent traffic dispute between Charlena Michelle Cooks, who is 8 months pregnant and black, and an unidentified white woman. The officer first talks to the white woman, who accuses Cooks of acting “all crazy.” “I don’t see a crime that has been committed,” the officer admits after examining the woman’s car. After promising the woman a police report, the officer heads over to talk to Cooks. Cooks explains that the argument occurred because the woman disagreed with the way she was driving in the parking lot. Cooks also said that the woman frightened her daughter, who was in second grade.
“She called the police for whatever reason, I don’t know,” Cooks says. “Should I feel threatened by her because she’s white? Because she’s white and she’s making threats to me?”
At that point the officer asks for Cooks’ name, but she insists that she does not have to tell him.

“I actually do have the right to ask you for your name,” the officer replies.
“Let me make sure,” Cooks says as she makes a phone call to someone.
The officer says he will give Cooks two minutes to verify his right to ask for her identification. But less than 20 seconds later, the officer and a colleague are performing a painful wristlock takedown on Cooks. The pregnant woman screams as she is forced belly first into the ground.
“Why are you resisting?” the officer demands.
“Please! I’m pregnant!” Cooks exclaims. “Please, stop this!”
ACLU SoCal staff attorney Adrienna Wong pointed out that Cooks had a right to refuse to show her ID.
“It would be a wrongful arrest, but it would be an arrest,” she noted. “Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can’t just require a person to provide ID for no reason.”






http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/body-cam-video-catches-barstow-cops-slamming-black-pregnant-woman-to-ground-letting-white-woman-go-free/

This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

She does not have to as seen.
The action by the Police was over the top.
Again.

She was being obnoxious. Why don't people just calm down and let the police do their job without histrionics?

Raggamuffin wrote:She was being obnoxious. Why don't people just calm down and let the police do their job without histrionics?

Subjectivce based on your opinion.
Again you miss the point the police actions were way over the top.

The officer didn't ask her to show ID, he asked for her name. I think that's reasonable because she was involved in an incident where the police were called.

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

You really are quite the authoritarian, aren't you?

You don't have to say anything to the police if you don't want to. And in this country, you don't have to carry any ID.

I realize Britain is a lot more oppressive than America on these matters, but in truth the cops are just another voice...not the voice of god.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

You really are quite the authoritarian, aren't you?  

You don't have to say anything to the police if you don't want to.  And in this country, you don't have to carry any ID.  

I realize Britain is a lot more oppressive than America on these matters, but in truth the cops are just another voice...not the voice of god.

Didn't I just say that he didn't ask for ID? He asked for her name.

She was involved in an incident in a car park. Why not just give him her name? It would have been sorted then and there if she'd done that. It was a silly incident anyway, and the officer was clearly just trying to establish what happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You really are quite the authoritarian, aren't you?  

You don't have to say anything to the police if you don't want to.  And in this country, you don't have to carry any ID.  

I realize Britain is a lot more oppressive than America on these matters, but in truth the cops are just another voice...not the voice of god.

Didn't I just say that he didn't ask for ID? He asked for her name.

She was involved in an incident in a car park. Why not just give him her name? It would have been sorted then and there if she'd done that. It was a silly incident anyway, and the officer was clearly just trying to establish what happened.

See above.

The cops were out of order, simple as that.
She is pregnant as well.
There was no need for how the officers reacted.
It is as simple as that.

The officer first talks to the white woman, who accuses Cooks of acting “all crazy.” “I don’t see a crime that has been committed,” the officer admits after examining the woman’s car. After promising the woman a police report, the officer heads over to talk to Cooks. Cooks explains that the argument occurred because the woman disagreed with the way she was driving in the parking lot. Cooks also said that the woman frightened her daughter, who was in second grade.

So what's wrong with asking for her name? The other woman might have wanted to put in a complaint or something. You need names if you're trying to sort out an incident.

The woman got belligerent about it and tried to walk off. Then she made a huge fuss and started making a scene.

Raggamuffin wrote:So what's wrong with asking for her name? The other woman might have wanted to put in a complaint or something. You need names if you're trying to sort out an incident.

The woman got belligerent about it and tried to walk off. Then she made a huge fuss and started making a scene.

“I don’t see a crime that has been committed,”

What reason did he even have to question her?
No crime had been committed, she did not call the Police.

The other woman called the police.

Raggamuffin wrote:The other woman called the police.

That is just what I said:

“I don’t see a crime that has been committed,”

What reason did he even have to question her?
No crime had been committed, she did not call the Police.
If she did not call the Police and the Police state no crime has been committed what reason do they need to talk to her?

The officer was trying to established what had happened because the other woman said the black woman was driving recklessly. He needed to make a report, so he needed her name. She got arsy and refused - it was her own fault.

The officer said there was no crime committed re damage to the car.

Raggamuffin wrote:The officer said there was no crime committed re damage to the car.

No that is you interpreting now.

No cime being committed means no crime has occured.

So again what reason did he need to talk to Cooks?

The only reason was to write up the report, of which Cooks does not have to provide any details. She did offer her side of the story, but she had no reason to provide her name, because if no crime was committed she had no reason to. The officers then clearly over reacted badly to where no crime had been committed.
Hope she sues them for every penny.

Raggamuffin wrote:The officer was trying to established what had happened because the other woman said the black woman was driving recklessly. He needed to make a report, so he needed her name. She got arsy and refused - it was her own fault.

Wrong.
If your daughter had felt threatened by another woman you would feel very agitated to, even more so to the Police being called.
She had every right to be pissed off and refusing to give your name is not a reason to be arrested.

He said he was going to document her name, and that he would document the incident and go from there.

Raggamuffin wrote:He said he was going to document her name, and that he would document the incident and go from there.

So what, that is not her problem, but his, and hence it was the officer being an arse, because she did not have to provide this.
Again no crime had been committed.

Think what you like, and I'll go by what I saw. Clearly, the woman who called the police was distressed by what happened.

Obnoxious people who screech in public and don't co-operate with the police should be arrested anyway IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:Think what you like, and I'll go by what I saw. Clearly, the woman who called the police was distressed by what happened.

Obnoxious people who screech in public and don't co-operate with the police should be arrested anyway IMO.

OMG so yeah the white woman is believed and the Black woman is not believed.

Go figure.

Nobody said the black woman wasn't believed. The white woman looked like she'd been crying, so obviously she was distressed.

The black woman kicked off and refused to give her name - that's why she was handcuffed. She should have just given her name for the report, and it would have been sorted.

The white woman didn't kick off, so she wasn't arrested.

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody said the black woman wasn't believed. The white woman looked like she'd been crying, so obviously she was distressed.

The black woman kicked off and refused to give her name - that's why she was handcuffed. She should have just given her name for the report, and it would have been sorted.
Again this has been explained and again if you were a parent and in a near miss you would then understand the agitation.

The white woman didn't kick off, so she wasn't arrested.
Really, did you witness the actual event with both ladies?

Er you just made claims off the situations, believing the white woman withouty witnessing any of the actual event between both women.
Clearly to me there was nearly an accident. Words were had by both parties, as both were scared of the near miss, daughter gets upset feeling threatened, mother gets more agitated. All a possibility and more like what happened. The White woman clearely over reacted to a near miss b y calling the Police.
You are not judge and jury to decide who is right or wrong yet you always do against the actual victim here which was the woman.
How many times do I have to say, she does not have to give her name, even more so when no crime has been committed?
I seriously think youi just argue for the sake of arguing.
The Police were in the wrong for two reasons.

No crime had been committed.

She does not have to give her name.

laters

I'm not going round and round in circles with you. I watched the video, and I have a different opinion to you.

The end.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't I just say that he didn't ask for ID? He asked for her name.

The issue isn't ID...you are evading. The issues is whether she must give her name. You claimed that she did. Defend your point.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't I just say that he didn't ask for ID? He asked for her name.

The issue isn't ID...you are evading.  The issues is whether she must give her name.  You claimed that she did.  Defend your point.

Bossy boots!

She may not have to give her name in law, but what is the point in refusing? The officer needed to do a report, so he needed names. He asked her perfectly politely, and she got belligerent.

It may have been a wrongful arrest, but in that case she should have just put in a complaint later instead of hollering and making a big scene.

She played the race card pretty much straight away as well, as have some other people.

Her name's all over the internet now - so much for refusing.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not going round and round in circles with you. I watched the video, and I have a different opinion to you.

The end.

You've admitted all the facts. The officer said he didn't see a crime. No crime, no report. Yet you apparently side with the white woman, that there was a crime. Again, no crime, no report.

The pregnant black woman was under no legal obligation to give her name. Moreover, you can't raise any, nor have you tried. Ergo: the violence by the police was gratuitous and the only element for why he behaved that was was racism. He should be reprimanded and released. The analysis of this situation is easy.

Raggamuffin wrote:Her name's all over the internet now - so much for refusing.

Yes...but that's beside the point. The police officer was out of line.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not going round and round in circles with you. I watched the video, and I have a different opinion to you.

The end.

You've admitted all the facts.  The officer said he didn't see a crime.  No crime, no report.  Yet you apparently side with the white woman, that there was a crime.  Again, no crime, no report.

The pregnant black woman was under no legal obligation to give her name.  Moreover, you can't raise any, nor have you tried.  Ergo: the violence by the police was gratuitous and the only element for why he behaved that was was racism.  He should be reprimanded and released.  The analysis of this situation is easy.

I didn't side with the white woman - I said she didn't get arrested because she didn't make a scene. If she had been the one to make a scene and refuse to give her name, I would have said the same thing.

There was no crime re damage to the car. The officer still wanted to investigate though - nothing wrong with that.

I knew you'd play the race card - so predictable.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Her name's all over the internet now - so much for refusing.

Yes...but that's beside the point.  The police officer was out of line.

Meh. Not according to the police.

Raggamuffin wrote:what is the point in refusing

You don't get to ask. The law is positive, and must be affirmatively stated. The inverse question is simply out of order. What doesn't exist...simply doesn't exist.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:what is the point in refusing

You don't get to ask.  The law is positive, and must be affirmatively stated.  The inverse question is simply out of order.  What doesn't exist...simply doesn't exist.

I don't get to ask? I can ask whatever I want.

Is this a police state on this forum now?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...but that's beside the point.  The police officer was out of line.

Meh. Not according to the police.

The police live by a method known as public inattention. Police wait out the criticism, and then do nothing about the crime. They think the inattention is enough.

That is precisely what is changing...in Ferguson, in Baltimore and everywhere else. Fortunately, these cell phone cameras are leaving a lasting impression. Those riots you are huffing and puffing about?? Those poor burned out cars? Those incidents are the police being called to answer. Watch what happens...you won't like it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Meh. Not according to the police.

The police live by a method known as public inattention.  Police wait out the criticism, and then do nothing about the crime.  They think the inattention is enough.

That is precisely what is changing...in Ferguson, in Baltimore and everywhere else.  Fortunately, these cell phone cameras are leaving a lasting impression.  Those riots you are huffing and puffing about??  Those poor burned out cars?  Those incidents are the police being called to answer.  Watch what happens...you won't like it.

What about the riots? If you're suggesting that people should not be arrested for arson, I disagree with you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't get to ask.  The law is positive, and must be affirmatively stated.  The inverse question is simply out of order.  What doesn't exist...simply doesn't exist.

I don't get to ask? I can ask whatever I want.

I know, but you end up looking inane. It's not about physical restraint; it's about looking the fool.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this a police state on this forum now?

You are engineering a reciprocal argument now? As tommy would say....waffle.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't get to ask? I can ask whatever I want.

I know, but you end up looking inane.  It's not about physical restraint; it's about looking the fool.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this a police state on this forum now?

You are engineering a reciprocal argument now?  As tommy would say....waffle.

Meh again. You just can't bear anyone to disagree with you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The police live by a method known as public inattention.  Police wait out the criticism, and then do nothing about the crime.  They think the inattention is enough.

That is precisely what is changing...in Ferguson, in Baltimore and everywhere else.  Fortunately, these cell phone cameras are leaving a lasting impression.  Those riots you are huffing and puffing about??  Those poor burned out cars?  Those incidents are the police being called to answer.  Watch what happens...you won't like it.

What about the riots? If you're suggesting that people should not be arrested for arson, I disagree with you.

Don't you see how weak and impotent your position is? What is, is what is. The police are losing...and all because of their tactic of waiting out the storm out no longer works. As I say, cell phone cameras leave lasting impressions.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know, but you end up looking inane.  It's not about physical restraint; it's about looking the fool.



You are engineering a reciprocal argument now?  As tommy would say....waffle.

Meh again. You just can't bear anyone to disagree with you.

Haha...I'm here, aren't I? You are so easy you give me no incentive to disappear.

Carry on.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Meh again. You just can't bear anyone to disagree with you.

Haha...I'm here, aren't I?  You are so easy you give me no incentive to disappear.

Carry on.

I've said what I think. You're the one having a tantrum about it - much like that woman.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The police live by a method known as public inattention.  Police wait out the criticism, and then do nothing about the crime.  They think the inattention is enough.

That is precisely what is changing...in Ferguson, in Baltimore and everywhere else.  Fortunately, these cell phone cameras are leaving a lasting impression.  Those riots you are huffing and puffing about??  Those poor burned out cars?  Those incidents are the police being called to answer.  Watch what happens...you won't like it.

What about the riots? If you're suggesting that people should not be arrested for arson, I disagree with you.

Hell no, the police should arrest all they want. And it will be on the front page of the news. And those officers will be fired. And the ones that broke the law will be prosecuted. And the government will no longer support them. And they will lose all that money...their jobs, etc.

Why do you think that protesters relish being arrested?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about the riots? If you're suggesting that people should not be arrested for arson, I disagree with you.

Hell no, the police should arrest all they want.  And it will be on the front page of the news.  And those officers will be fired.  And the ones that broke the law will be prosecuted.  And the government will no longer support them.  And they will lose all that money...their jobs, etc.

Why do you think that protesters relish being arrested?

Fired on what grounds? That they arrested someone who set fire to a car?

I don't think so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...I'm here, aren't I?  You are so easy you give me no incentive to disappear.

Carry on.

I've said what I think. You're the one having a tantrum about it - much like that woman.

There, you see didge?  That's the way you bring conservatives to their knees!!!

(Opps...you are a conservative. Never mind.)

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've said what I think. You're the one having a tantrum about it - much like that woman.

There, you see didge?  That's they way you bring conservatives to their knees!!!

I never vote Tory.

You couldn't bring anyone to their knees - you're too ... silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There, you see didge?  That's they way you bring conservatives to their knees!!!

I never vote Tory.

You couldn't bring anyone to their knees - you're too ... silly.

And cute, too.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I never vote Tory.

You couldn't bring anyone to their knees - you're too ... silly.

And cute, too.

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

Because it is the LAW!!!

you argument is stupid
The police are People they have a job and have to perform that Job within the word of the law if they do not they are CRIMINALS and breaking the law the Police officer was BREAKING he law and is a criminal for LYING about having the right to demand ID which he does not have the right to ask her for ID!!!
End of story she was not breaking the law he was breaking the law and then he Physically attacked a Law abiding citizen! That was also a pregnant women that Morally mean Every single able bodied man should Kick his trucking head in.. that is the LAW of being a man regardless of nation, if another man wants to attack a pregnant women you are obliged to fuck him up.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about letting a white woman go free.

Why didn't the woman just give her name? If the police ask for your name, you tell them. Shouting and screaming just makes things worse. Why don't people just learn that?

Because it is the LAW!!!

you argument is stupid
The police are People they have a job and have to perform that Job within the word of the law if they do not they are CRIMINALS and breaking the law the Police officer was BREAKING he law and is a criminal for LYING about having the right to demand ID which he does not have the right to ask her for ID!!!
End of story she was not breaking the law he was breaking the law and then he Physically attacked a Law abiding citizen! That was also a pregnant women that Morally mean Every single able bodied man should Kick his trucking head in.. that is the LAW of being a man regardless of nation, if another man wants to attack a pregnant women you are obliged to fuck him up.

She just looked fat to me tbh.

Anyway, she should have stayed calm if she was so concerned about her baby.

The officer has not been charged with anything, so clearly nobody thinks he broke the law either.

How pathetic that you're inciting people to attack a police officer, and you have the nerve to say that my argument is stupid.

I think, in a country where the cops are trigger happy, if a cop asks you a question answer it. Not rocket science.

Nems wrote:I think, in a country where the cops are trigger happy, if a cop asks you a question answer it. Not rocket science.

Well yes, that as well, regardless of what your "rights" are.

I've asked the question before - is it possible that so many black people are shot by police because they tend to run away more, or answer back more? If I was over there and I encountered a police officer with a gun, I wouldn't make a move!