Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Why train drivers to tolerate aggressive police tactics when we could just end aggressive police tactics?

Grits had wondered if the proposal to educate Texas ninth graders about police interactions at yesterday's Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee meeting would move beyond the standard "comply and complain" model taught in Texas drivers ed for decades to include more useful information on how to assert one's rights to end police interactions as quickly as possible. Seemingly not.

There are somewhere north of 60,000 law enforcement officers in Texas and more than 28 million residents. If education is going to solve the problem, pure practicality would dictate beginning with the 60k instead of the 28 million, even if you're doing it just one generation at a time as they pass through the ninth grade. But suggestions for police deescalation training were vague and nebulous, while a curriculum for ninth graders was discussed in much more concrete terms.

Sandra Bland's case was held up as an example of citizens needing better training, but I don't wholly agree. (Let's put aside for the moment that Sandra Bland grew up out of state and came to Texas to go to college, so the proposal couldn't have impacted her situation.) If you watch the video, at the moment the trooper put his hands on Ms. Bland and told her she was under arrest, she had done nothing more illegal than failure to signal a lane change and was being arrested for a Class C misdemeanor. She resisted - because the arrest was complete and utter bullshit and the trooper was a jerk - so that got her a more significant charge. But what started it all was Brian Encina getting angry because Sandra Bland wouldn't put out her cigarette, grabbing her to yank her out of the vehicle, and announcing she was under arrest for failure to signal a lane change.

If the trooper were better trained and never laid hands on Ms. Bland, OR if the Lege had changed the law to ban arrests for Class C misdemeanors (for which the max punishment is only a fine, not jail time) so he couldn't have legally arrested her, that may have prevented her eventual, tragic death. Bland's instinctual impulse to resist never arises if the trooper doesn't try to bully her and improperly assert his dominance. It's hard to see how you can educate that sort of basic human reaction away, any more than abstinence-only education in high school stops teens from having sex.

The problem is you're trying to educate people to accept being disrespected and demeaned by someone whose salary is paid from their taxes. The SA Current reported a telling exchange from the hearing which encapsulates this problem:
Shortly into this morning's Senate hearing on criminal justice, Senator José Menéndez, a San Antonio Democrat, brought up his own experience with law enforcement.

"I've gotten pulled over a couple times," he said. "And the first thing the officer asks is, 'Is this your car?' And I want to ask, 'Why, is it because it looked like I borrowed it?'"

Sen. John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice replied, with a chuckle: "That's what we're going to teach in the class not to say."
But exactly why should the senator avoid reacting to the officer's implication that he stole the car he was in if he thinks he's being racially profiled? I don't understand. The officer asked what the senator viewed as an insulting question. Why is it on the driver to withstand and ignore the insult? Why shouldn't it be on the officer (and by extension, those who trained her) to behave more respectfully? If the driver asks questions that imply the officer is corrupt, a wife-beater, a thief, a liar, etc., would we expect the officer to react calmly?

Here again, as with Sandra Bland: An officer instigates, the driver reacts (or at least considers it), and somehow it's the reacting driver, not the instigating officer (the only person in the interaction actually employed by the government), who this proposal seeks to hold responsible for bad outcomes. This is a basic cart-before-the-horse situation: If government can control its own employees and train them to behave more respectfully - not turning every citizen interaction into some investigative detention or petty personal power play - the state won't need to "educate" its citizens on how to successfully survive interactions with them without being killed.

Sen. Menendez's experience also brings up a point about the proposed curriculum that Grits mentioned over the weekend:
Teaching them to "comply" cannot mean "comply with questioning." Drivers must submit to short-term detention if they're pulled over but they're under no obligation to explain where they're coming from, where they're going, what they're doing, consent to a search, etc.. If the curriculum does not acknowledge those limitations on officers' ability to enforce compliance and ignores drivers' civil liberties in favor of emphasizing cops' authority, it won't solve the problem and may make it worse.
Bishop James Dixon from Houston similarly pinned blame for negative interactions on officers seeking to use traffic stops as a platform for investigating the driver on unrelated offenses for which the officer has no evidence:
Bishop James Dixon of the Community of Faith congregation in Houston told the committee about being followed by a police officer for two miles before he was pulled over and surrounded by four police cars. “I don’t think that’s happening to my white brothers and sisters,” he said.

“I feel threatened whenever the police stop me,” Dixon said. “I am an endangered species. So is my 9-year-old son.”

During traffic stops, Dixon suggested requiring officers to identify themselves and state why they pulled the driver over before asking questions. “I have been asked, ‘Is that car yours? Where are you going?’ — as opposed to, ‘Good afternoon, my name is officer so-and-so and the reason that I stopped you is,’” Dixon said.

“The tone the officer uses to ask me a question lets me know if the officer is simply trying to provoke me or if he’s trying to get information,” he said.
That's an accurate assessment - the officer is trying to provoke the driver. So the state can train millions of people to withstand provocation by government employees, or teach a few thousand of its agents to not intentionally provoke people. On its face, which do you think would do more to reduce problematic traffic stop interactions?

Beyond pragmatism, there are at least three good reasons the officer in that situation bears the lion's share of responsibility compared to the driver. 1) It's their job for which they've received extensive, detailed training while the driver is a random person chosen literally off the street. 2) The power differential - in terms of legal authority, strategic positioning and firepower - is all in the officer's favor, and power exercised arrogantly spurs resentment. And 3) The officer initiated the interaction, the driver did not ask for it and does not want it. The driver is reacting, while the officer is in control or, in cases such as Trooper Encina's, looking to establish it. But often, deescalation is more appropriate and would prevent these sort of negative outcomes. Limiting aggressive police tactics at traffic stops can reduce animus and ill will from the public. Sandra Bland couldn't make Trooper Encina NOT put his hands on her, that was his choice. (And it rightly cost him his job.)

At the hearing, Whitmire's proposal faced no opposition. But the Texas Observer quoted a spokesman for Black Lives Matter: Houston who dubbed the proposal victim blaming: “It’s an insult. It just seems to me that they are trying to satisfy the demands and needs of the police unions.” The liberal site Think Progress called it a "well-intentioned, backwards plan to improve traffic stops with police," complaining that "the proposed curriculum assumes that the people targeted during those stops are the problem— not the officers."

To be fair, at one point Chairman Whitmire did opine that, “It is not as simple as 'obey and complain' – it’s too simplistic.” Reported the  Tribune:
Officers also have to shift from an "I caught you" mentality to a protective one, Whitmire said.

"If you see young people out at night on a corner, instead of driving up like you're trying to see who's got some dope, would it not be better if you drove up and see if something you can do to help them get home safely?" he said.
But the comply-and-complain meme (Whitmire's "obey and complain" is a better description), which has been a cornerstone of how students are taught to interact with police officers in Texas drivers ed courses for decades, dominated the ledes of much of the MSM coverage from the hearing as though it were something new under the sun and not a theme countless black parents have pounded into their children's heads for generations, too often to no avail.

That's the dilemma: Compliance won't always protect you and complaining generally hasn't made a difference. Without addressing those failures, which are problems for police agencies and legislators to confront, not the public, there's not much you could tell kids in a ninth grade classroom that will fundamentally alter this dynamic.

Finally, Clay Robison of the Texas State Teachers Association made an important and largely neglected point from the perspective of educators: "To make such a lesson work, there would need to be uniformity in what students should expect from law enforcement across jurisdictions." Right now that's not the case. So again, the first thing to do if we want this education to happen is focus on police disciplinary systems and training, so students receiving the curriculum in one part of the state will know it applies when they travel to another. Without that uniformity, there's no way for TEA to develop a consistent, statewide curriculum.

Police shooting too many people is the government's problem to fix. Training youth how to exercise their rights in ways that end police encounters as quickly and safely as possible - and to demand an attorney if the officer wants to question them further - might in the long run help the problem. But just telling kids "shut up and do what you're told" won't be sufficient. In the near term, we'd get a lot more bang for the buck training officers in PERF-approved deescalation methods and empowering departments to punish bad cops.

RELATED: What should we teach ninth graders so police won't shoot them?


Anonymous said...

Police are like alcoholic's until they admit they are wrong it is not getting better.

Anonymous said...

“Training” goes both ways.

Cops need to be taught that “Comply or Die” is not an acceptable police practice before they have any credibility to teach “young skulls full of mush” how to interact with the police.

Before the police or anyone else can teach or young people about how to “interact with the police” the police need to be taught how to interact with the citizens that pay their salary and put food on their table. If and when police ever realize that we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights in this country, then they can preach to the public about how to “interact with” and "respect" their "profession”.

With the advent of video recording everywhere and on both sides of the issue, it amazes me that the police, who are supposed to be “highly trained”, do not understand even basic third grade civil rights, and seem to have no compunction whatsoever to display that ignorance when video cameras from any source are rolling. Encinia’s temper tantrum at Sandra Bland and DPS roadside cavity searches are but two examples of how police display their ignorance of basic civil rights – ON CAMERA. This from DPS Troopers who are supposedly trained better that those paltry “municipal cops" and sheriff’s deputies. To be fair, a recent beating of a homeless man by a Houston Metro officer was caught on video also. The good news here is that officer was nearly immediately fired and indicted for misdemeanor assault, which would have been a felony had any “civilian” attacked a fellow citizen in such a manner.

Two very real problems are the “good” police who tolerate thug cops within their ranks, and spineless pro police DAs who are more worried about their next endorsement from the local police unions during election time than they are about any semblance of “justice” (Right Messrs Anderson, Healy, Ligon, Yenni and many others?) Solve those problems and the police will be on their way to earning the respect that they desperately crave, but at present, do not deserve.

Then and only then can law enforcement agencies have any credibility with those “young skulls full of mush”.

Ryan Paige said...

I think of Philando Castile. He was obviously trained to let officers know he had a permit and was carrying. And that apparently worked fine dozens of times until one police officer panicked and shot him to death.

And yes, without any kind of actual punishment when complaints are filed, obey-and-complain is really just obey.

Gadfly said...

How long before John Whitmire either retires or gets primaried?

Anonymous said...

Scott, to what extent are your views on this subject influenced by your own little encounter with APD a few years back? Can you really be objective on this topic? Or are you even trying to be?

Anonymous said...

Police interactions with the public should be almost nearly 100% scripted, i.e. , welcome to Chick-fil-A, may not take your order?" Businesses that rely on consistent customer interactions don't leave these things up to individuals. If you want a job, here's how to do it.

These cops have been told they have to utilize traffic stops to find and bust Al Capone. So they have to get confrontational. I say chuck this out the window and script the interactions. Get the police unions on board under the banner of officer safety.

Anonymous said...

Yeah - police need to forget looking beyond the initial traffic violation and ignore the possible kidnapped child in the backseat, body that is in the trunk of the car, driver/fugitive that provides a wrong name, or the next shooter that's going to shoot up the next school.

Police catch hell for doing their job and catch hell when they do less.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:00...don't be childish and try to be productive.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@8:55, I held these same views many years before that happened. I don't believe in "objectivity," though I do believe in "evidence." And the evidence weighs in favor of reformers on these questions, as has been the case my whole adult life.

@5:11, random traffic stops are a TERRIBLY inefficient way to look for drug mules, fugitives, terrorists, or dead bodies, won't stop a shooter, and a kidnapped child in the back seat can always outcry. The harms from not misusing police resources in such inefficient, unproductive ways based on minuscule chances of hitting on an offender are entirely outweighed by the aggregate harms from alienating large portions of the public, who will ultimately stop cooperating with law enforcement at all if they cannot trust them.

Anonymous said...

Grits - in lieu of random traffic stops to catch fugitives, abducted kids, terrorist, etc; your approach would be what?

Anonymous said...

You are completely missing the point Anonymous 09:35. It sounds like you want a complete police state...with road blocks, strip searches and the old Gestapo "Papers Please!" approach. If you want to prevent all of the illegal items you mentioned in your post, why not just completely do away with civil rights altogether and live in a totalitarian police state? A better solution is police reform. I would HOPE you would be more open to that approach??

Tom said...

Has anyone ever thought that a little civility and common sense both ways could go a long way towards making police-civilian encounters less nerve racking? If the police, instead of coming on like Atilla the Hun were a bit more polite and citizens were a bit more polite to the police, this would defuse a lot of situations?
Of course, our society overall lacks civility and common courtesy. And, police should be trained to be more aware of the extent of their authority. When I was an officer in the Army, I had the legal right to give orders to subordinates. But cops don't have the general authority to order anyone to do anything unless that person is under arrest or otherwise detained.
It took me years to convince the Harris County DA's office that police don't have the unfettered right to demand identification even though there is a Supreme Court case from Texas that says exactly that. And, if lawyers don't believe what the Supreme Court and the Texas failure to identify statute says, how are cops expected to follow the law without training.

Anonymous said...

10:01AM - I didn't miss any point and only kindly asked Grits approach on how/what he would recommend since traffic stops are terribly inefficient. What would be more efficient and effective?

Anonymous said...

If memory serves, didn't the arrest and charges against Timothy McVeigh stem from a routine traffic stop?

@Tom... Grits and the whole BLM movement are not interested in civility. You have to keep in mind that these actors are PRO-criminal. They want to shift the balance of power away from traditional law and order to a society where anarchy and lawlessness prevail. It's not enough that there's a transfer of wealth from law abiding, hard working citizens to the "takers" through oppressive taxation; but they want to also increase the odds of criminals successfully operating in their chosen vocation at the expense of victims with little chance of being caught. What they fail to realize is that there will likely become a tipping point whereby weakening the power of law enforcement to control criminal behavior in a democratic society will eventually lead to vigilantism. Right now, most law abiding Americans are willing to delegate to law enforcement the ability and authority to deal with the criminal element so they don't have to deal with it themselves. Fighting crime can necessarily be a messy business. But if Grits, BLM and others of their ilk become successful in emasculating law enforcement to the point where criminals begin to gain the upper hand, good and decent people will do what it takes to protect their lives, their families and their property. And they won't use good manners or be restricted by civil rights when they do it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous have been drinking too much of the tainted Koolaid! lol

Anonymous said...

So Anon 11:40:oo AM, are you saying you are perfectly ok with LE having unchecked authority? And, you are ok with LE gunning down unarmed citizens? I mean, if you are ok with that then you would be willing to accept having your own kids gunned down by "accident" in a routine traffic stop? If you are, then by all means say so! As for me, I want police accountability, proper training and de-escalation. I don't think that is asking for too much in what is supposed to be the most democratic and free nation in the world?

Anonymous said...

To the post dated 11:40: Your scenario sounds like some bad Hollywood script for a post apocalyptic scenario starring some washed up action hero. Seriously, this is just the next step in the evolution of advancing civil rights in this country. People like you were spouting similar drivel back in the 60's during the first civil rights movement.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@11.40- no, you're wrong. McVeigh was arrested for carrying an illegal weapon, not a traffic violation.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@10:50/9:35, nearly anything investigation based instead of relying on random encounters with members of the public.

Ryan Paige said...

There's a big difference between being investigative and being aggressive.

What was the investigative purpose in asking Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette and then becoming aggressive when she refused his request? How would that tactic save a kidnapped child or catch a drug-running fugitive? What extra information did kicking that homeless guy at the Houston Metro stop produce?

In addition, if we're going to have investigative stops, we need to base those stops on something that actually correlates with finding contraband or fugitives or whatever. Stop-and-frisk in New York came up empty roughly 90% of the time. That's not a good use of officer's time, and it engenders bad feelings between the police and the community. We see the same with statistics regarding traffic stops in Texas. Minorities are more likely to be stopped and more likely to be searched but less likely to have contraband. Whatever these officers are basing their targeting particular drivers on, it's not something that accurately coincides with actual criminal behavior.

Look at Philando Castile who gets pulled over something like 50 times in a year and a half. Most of the tickets written are for things that couldn't be observed by the officer prior to the stop, and roughly half of the tickets issued are dismissed in court. That's aggressive policing even before the final incident that resulted in his death. But what investigative purpose did it ultimately serve? Given that the result of the stops were minor traffic violations at best (and roughly half were sketchy enough to be dismissed), It'd be difficult to say that by routinely pulling him over, the police were making a dent in catching kidnapped children or finding fugitives or whatnot.

Meanwhile, I (knock on wood) have been pulled over three times in the last twelve years. One was when I had a taillight out, and the officer just pulled me over to tell me (she didn't even ask for my ID). The other two were when I was speeding. Of those, only once did the officer actually ask for my ID and run me through the system (and he hurried when I told him I was running late). The other time, the officer just told me to 'slow it down'. Absolutely no aggressive policing from those officers. I even got off easier than I could have (since I was actually speeding and did actually have a tail light out).

Even when I was younger and got pulled over a lot, I've never had any officer ask to search my car (or never had to wait while they brought in a sniffer dog). Only been pulled from my car once for a field sobriety test (I was stone sober, so that was a little more aggressive than I'd have preferred, but the officer was nothing but polite). Never been arrested for any of the minor violations that sometimes lead others to jail.

And I've dealt with police all over the state. I used to drive up and down 287 twice a month when I was younger, and I probably got pulled over at least once in each little town along the way. Never been the subject of aggressive policing and every single time, I really was speeding.

Now, I can guess how someone who looks like me could manage to make it to age 45 never having been the subject of aggressive policing when most of these departments engage in aggressive police tactics regularly against others. And I think that's where the problem lies.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Grits, McVeigh was stopped for having no license plates on his vehicle. I don't know for sure but my guess is that's a ticketable offense in Oklahoma. He was actually arrested for having no license plates, no vehicle registration, and possession of a firearm without a permit. The last offense would not have been discovered without additional investigation beyond the original reason for the traffic stop. Good police work, in other words. By the tenor of many of the comments on this thread, it sounds like there are plenty of your readers who would have been more than happy to let McVeigh go with a ticket and a friendly "have a nice day."

Twitch - Entropy said...

There's always the one bad apple so to speak that falls through the cracks
and the po po's get lucky.

But, truly, at the heart of this is the addiction to Kar Kulture and the enhanced factor of racist profiling, I suppose traffic cops would rather do something more community-based and avoid the etiquette required to wrangle with annoyed drivers or realize there's a big world out there.

Twitch - Entropy

Joel said...

It's really sad that there is so much attack on the police in this country. People should stop judging people based on their color. I wish this whole thing would just stop

Gritsforbreakfast said...

That's spin, 4:13. McVeigh informed him he had an illegal weapon. The cop arrested McVeigh but for the gun, but it wasn't like he found it because of an investigation. McVeigh ratted himself out. That case wasn't about arresting for a traffic offense, and it wasn't a case of investigating past the stop. Confessing to possession of illegal weapons or other contraband would still get you arrested under my suggested protocol.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, in today's Washington Post:

A Chicago police officer who was savagely beaten at a car accident scene this week did not draw her gun on her attacker — even though she feared for her life — because she was afraid of the media attention that would come if she shot him, the city’s police chief said Thursday.

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson said the officer, a 17-year veteran of the force, knew she should shoot the attacker but hesitated because “she didn’t want her family or the department to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news,” the Chicago Tribune reported.

Johnson’s remarks, which came at an awards ceremony for police and firefighters, underscore a point law enforcement officers and some political leaders have pressed repeatedly as crime has risen in Chicago and other major cities: that police are reluctant to use force or act aggressively because they worry about negative media attention that will follow.

Anonymous said...

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 15-20 percent of the U.S. population 16 and older have direct contact with a police officer each year. Traffic stops are the most common form of that contact and are also where a large percentage of officers are killed each year. I'm a middle-aged white guy. If you accept the premise that police treat young minority males differently than other populations, I'm not exactly a target. Still, when I get stopped, it's dome light on, windows rolled down, hands on the steering wheel and "yes sir, no sir."

We can talk all day about how it ought to be and who has rights, etc., and there's certainly nothing to stop anyone from taking a firm stand against what they perceive as unreasonable police conduct. If you really think an officer is conducting him/herself unreasonably, though, why would you want to escalate that? If they are racially profiling, you can bet they will be able to lay out a rational basis for the stop (whether it's true or not, i.e., lane change without signaling, following too closely, etc.) when it comes to writing the report. They are not going to lay out that rational basis standing on the side of the road.

In my opinion, the real crux of the issue is low educational requirements and minimal training standards for police officers. The state sets minimum standards for police training, but that's just what they are, minimum standards. Most large agencies require additional training, but Texas requires only 618 hours of training to be licensed as a police officer. By comparison, a cosmetologist (the person who cuts your hair at Supercuts) has to complete 1,500 hours of training. The biggest gap in the system, though, is the education requirement. You have to have a bachelor's degree in a related field to be a probation officer or parole officer. The teacher who will teach the proposed comply and complain curriculum has to have a college degree. Meanwhile, the state minimum education requirement to be a police officer is a high school diploma or GED. That and 15 weeks of training and you're good to go, as far as the state of Texas is concerned.

The point at which most people encounter the criminal justice system, the point at which decisions with potentially life or death consequences are made in a fraction of a second under incredibly stressful circumstances, is the police officer on the street. Why don't we require police officers to have a bachelor's degree in a related field with specific coursework in criminal justice, psychology, sociology, etc.?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Just to mention it, 8:42, and not to detract from your other points - I'd like to see police trained as thoroughly as barbers - but this comment reflects an urban myth: "Traffic stops are ... where a large percentage of officers are killed each year." As it turns out, traffic accidents with the cop behind the wheel are by far the bigger cause of death, and suicides total greater than all on-duty deaths. I'm not saying there's no danger at traffic stops, but don't oversell it.

Anonymous said...

@7:50, after they murdered Laquan McDonald, Chicago cops SHOULD worry about how things look on the news. The officer in that story you posted didn't fare nearly as badly as McDonald did. She survived to receive an award. Maybe if more officers thought that way, it would have saved Laquan's life.

Which reminds me, you ignored the other big police story out of Chicago today.

john said...

whew, look at all the comments, BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT?
Yup, the cops are trained out-to-get-us, not only because they're often forced to raise revenue, but also because there's way-too-much old-school boys-club/sports/military/us-vs-them ARROGANCE AND COVER YOUR ASS. The field of Law Enharshment has long been out of control.
As Bruce Springsteen noted, nobody like to be told they're wrong.
Besides financial pressure, cops are squeezed by the dirty legal system, I mean the corrupt lawyers & judges-who-would-be-politicians. WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, THEY DON'T HESITATE TO UTILIZE POWER BEYOND LAWFUL AUTHORITY, (Cops shoot you dead, claim they feared for their lives, go on paid administrative leave---while the Courts cover it up, so no Cops are indicted, etc. BUT JUDGES don't even bother to have the required oath of office, go by unwritten policies instead of the written law, use only the pieces of law to THEIR advantage and expediency, etc. What judge will show up for a required Magistrate Hearing, when they can have the Cop throw you in jail, overnight--for a non-jailable Class C Misdemeanor--to soften you up? You like jailhouse baloney or peanut butter, in an hyper-over-crowded dump? Got anyone who has a small fortune, to make your bail, on short notice?)
And try and find a Cop that has DPS certification to make a traffic arrest*--after his bozo bait&swap Pretext Stop; and try and find a lawyer that will take a drug test to "represent" you (though of course, they first have oaths to the lawyers' guild [State Bar Ass] and then the Court). AND they leave your record uncleaned, so potential credit & employers see things listed, for which you were actually found not-guilty, or cleared or dropped. Got $2 grand to spare?
AND THE LAWS PROTECT THE COPS--so they needn't to fear for their convenience OR paperwork--NOT THE CITIZENS. And Do Not resist their arrogant, biased tyranny, coerced even under your duress, or you might die: be very afraid, be terrorized!! THE LEGAL SYSTEM TRULY HOLDS YOU HARSHLY GUILTY, UNTIL YOU PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. Because NOBODY is overseeing them. IF IT WASN'T FOR PHONE CAMERAS, MANY MORE OF US WOULD BE DEAD. But video proved the Cops' War On America.
_*_TAC Title 37, Pt. 1, Chapter 4, Subchap. B, Rule 4.13

Mark M. said...

Anon 11:40
But I bet you have a lot of friends who are black, right?

Dr Purva Pius said...

Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:( Thank you.


1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
11.Monthly Income…………..

Email Kindly Contact: