Khoa Lam, a Vietnamese immigrant who grew up in Davis and recently passed his residency to become a doctor and landed a position in Dallas, was visiting his parents this week in Davis at the Moore Village Apartment complex when he twice fell victim to a phenomenon now popularly referred to as being “Karened”—having someone call the police on a person of color out of unreasonable suspicion.
Officers Hatcher and Ramos, two female officers with the Davis Police Department, arrived but Dr. Lam found them unsympathetic.
Dr. Lam spoke with the Vanguard on Saturday, and the incident happened on Friday around 6 pm when he was taking a walk out by the apartments where his parents live. He was Facetiming with his wife, who was visiting her family in Philadelphia as he was visiting his here.
As he was talking, he saw a lady mouthing something him. He asked her if there was something she needed, “She said something like ‘you can’t be walking around here.’” She added, he said, “You don’t belong here.”
“What?” he said. “I’m visiting family.”
At this point he said to his wife that he had to hang up so he could record it.
The lady told him, “You need to leave right now.” And repeated, “You don’t belong here.”
Then she asked if he knew anyone here, and he responded yes, his parents. “Then she asked, where are your parents? That’s when I was thinking, I don’t need to answer any of this stuff. I wasn’t doing 
anything illegal. I don’t look suspicious. I was just walking around the paths where anyone can walk. I lived there for four years during medical school from 2008 to 2013.
“I had never encountered anything like this,” he said. “There was no reason for my presence to cause any questions.”
He told her he would not answer any more of her questions as he started his recording. At this point she left and claimed she would call the police.
“I was like, what, you’re going to call the cops on me for looking suspicious?” he said. “I was like, call the cops. I’m waiting here.”
He said he was so upset that he immediately posted this encounter on his Facebook page. But it wasn’t over yet.
“I was pretty shaken up by the whole incident,” he said.
The video he posted, about one minute, shows the lady in front of her apartment suggesting, “You don’t belong here” and asking, “Do you know someone here?”
“Yeah I do,” he said.
“Where are you visiting?” she asked.
“My parents,” he responded.
“Where is that?” she asked.
“Where are my parents? Why do I have to explain to you?” he asked. His voice was calm, in fact, he sounded remarkably the same as he did on the phone interview, with the same cadence, tempo and demeanor.
At this point she walked away and said, “I don’t think you need to be videotaping.”
He told her, “You call the police.”
He was in the middle of posting the event while waiting, in case the lady actually called the police so he could present his case. Fifteen minutes later a second person, a man, got in his face and demanded to know what he was doing there.
As he described it to the Vanguard, the man was confrontational.
“My neighbor told me you were videotaping the whole place,” the man said.
“What the hell,” he was thinking. The man started asking questions and Dr. Lam again is thinking, “I don’t have to answer any of these questions.”
He told the man, “You can call the cops if you want, but I don’t have to answer anything.”
He said, “There was no reason for him to even accuse me of taking photos of people’s cars or houses.” He said, “I don’t have to answer to anybody.” At this point, all he was doing was texting family and friends about what had previously happened.
“He’s not a cop. He’s not a neighborhood watch. He’s nobody,” he said. “He called the cops on me. I was furious.”
The video shows the man calling the police, “There is a man walking around my apartment complex. He’s taking photos of people’s houses. I walked up and asked him and he got very standoffish, won’t answer any of my questions, he’s videotaping me now.”
When the man went in, Dr. Lam said he got his ID and wallet out and stood outside waiting for the cops.
At this point, as indicated above, Officer Hatcher and Officer Ramos arrived, two white female police officers. Officer Hatcher came up and asked what happened.
“I told them I’m a doctor, I’m visiting my parents here,” he said. His friends had recommended that he tell the cops that he’s a doctor because “it lends more credibility that he’s not a criminal. He’s a good citizen trying to help people.”
Dr. Lam had just finished his fellowship in neuroradiology at the University of Washington at Seattle. He completed that work and just landed a job in Dallas, TX, where he starts on August 3. In between, he has spent two weeks in Davis.
He came to the U.S. in 2000 from Vietnam, coming to Sacramento for a few years and moving to Davis a few years later.
Dr. Lam said he told Officer Ramos what happened, and his parents also came out to talk to the police. He told her that he hadn’t been doing anything and was “falsely accused.” The second person “interrogated me and falsely accused me.”
Dr. Lam said “at that point I was pretty worked up.”
The officer said, “You repeatedly asked him to call the cops. He didn’t know what to do. So he ended up calling the cops.”
Dr. Lam said he was baffled by this, believing the man had gotten into his face and was confrontational and accusatory.
“He called the cops on me and now is blaming me for pushing him to call the cops,” he told the Vanguard.
He said that Officer Hatcher told him, “It’s about perspectives. To you, you don’t look suspicious and aren’t doing anything suspicious. To them, you look suspicious and were doing something suspicious. And all they were asking was for some clarification.”
Dr. Lam said that he responded, “Do I look like a terrorist or a vandal or something like that?”
She started laughing. “Do you know what terrorists look like?”
“I was in utter shock at the way she handled my situation,” he said. He said that she was basically blaming him for being uncooperative with the other citizens about his situation. Dr. Lam said that he wanted the officer to allow him to talk with them to explain that he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but she advised against it and told him he should just let the matter rest.
The Vanguard asked Chief Darren Pytel if he was aware of the incident—he was able to find the call but would not be able to view the police body cam until Monday.
The term “Karen” has crept into American lexicon after the incident in which Amy Cooper in Central Park called the police on a man she said was harassing her, but the accusations were revealed to be false.
The term now refers to a woman or person “perceived to be entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is considered appropriate or necessary.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
According to Wikipedia:
Funny how you left out the first part, how the term is “pejorative”.
Is that because pejorative terms are not allowed on the Vanguard?
It always fascinates me what part of the story someone is going to focus on.
It always fascinates me the part of the story you think should be ignored.
The question is when is a pejorative term appropriate, or at least allowable. Perjorative terms are not appropriate and border on being a hate crime when it is about something that the person has no control over, e.g., being Black, Asian, Latino (even white), being of Jewish or other heritage that has been inherited, religious beliefs (but allowed as a descriptor), being LGBTQ+ (contrary to any nonscientific comments), being disabled. Pejorative terms are allowed if not appropriate for conditions that an individual has choice and control over, e.g., liberal, conservative, progressive, reactionary, populist, socialist, capitalist, racist, Objectivist, Marxist, Karen.
Tell that to every women named “Karen”.
They can always change their name… a lot of people named Adolph did so in the 40’s and 50’s…
Alan
Just no. It is entirely possible to change one’s name. Many, many women and a lesser number of men chose to do so voluntarily every year. Although I did not choose to change my last name, I did change my first. Race…not so easy to change for most .
Are you saying “allowed” as in ‘socially’, or as in ‘Vanguard policy’ ?
Here’s some rules from the Vanguard comment policy regulations:
So Richard, you are wrong. “Karen” should not be allowed according to the Vanguard’s own comment policy. Just as Wikipedia describes it, Karen is a pejorative term.
Please stop debating moderation policies.
Where’s the video? It would add to the story, give it perspective.
What race was the lady who first questioned him and what race was the man that called the police?
I’m not going to post the video because it shows both the people involved – I don’t have the ability to blur them out right now. I watched them and quoted them. His account was pretty accurate from what I could see. The videos don’t show what he may have been doing to attract attention nor do they show the interaction with the police.
What race (or different races) are the two people that confronted Lam?
White
White? Final Answer? Are you totally sure they weren’t Filipino?
The more important issue – would a white person been treated in the same manner as Dr. Lam?
Dammit Alan, I just spit my coffee, hope I didn’t ruin my keyboard.
Possibly. I know that apartment complex and some of the paths are very close to the apartments, especially on the back side next to the creek.
David, have you tried to get the other side of the story?
Yes – I asked Pytel what he knew. I have asked for the body camera. I did on the video see some of the interaction which was actually very close to how Dr. Lam described it.
I have a lot of experience taking photos and video, and have never had the kind of interaction described by Dr. Lam.
No, not just the police cams but maybe you could get the two sides of the story of the people who confronted Lam. Why they felt the need to do so?
We have the description from the one who was recorded making the 911 call. I think we have a pretty good idea as to why he called – of course, he was probably less than aware of what happened prior to coming outside.
It appears that would be a “no”.
Blur them out? Why? If you do that, how would we get them cancelled and fired from their jobs?
” I don’t have the ability to blur them out right now.”
They have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting.
At 6 pm while still light you don’t lead with “You don’t belong here.”
If she had started with something like hello, are you new here? Or some other opening this entire thing could have been easily avoided. Its best to start with basic social graces instead of accusations.
If she had minded her own business, this entire thing would have been avoided. If the cops knew the law, this whole thing could have been avoided. Photography in and from a public place is constitutionally protected activity. Maybe Davis needs a few dedicated First amendment audits from seasoned auditors.
Ron
This was my first thought also. Regardless of race, whatever makes someone so paranoid, fearful, or entitled that their opener in a conversation is ” you don’t belong here.” ?
Hmmmmm, was this sentence altered?
This is the sentence from my Google doc: “When the police arrived, Officer Hatcher and Officer Ramos, two women officers with the Davis Police Department, Dr. Lam found them unsympathetic.”
Looks like Cathy rephrased it slightly.
Seems to me something else is missing.
KO, lost me on this one: not sure what you are insinuating is missing . . .
Yes I did, as it was not a quote
The officers sounded from what is described as if they handled this very professionally. They had to respond to the call, and explained about perspectives. The second person continued to see someone hanging out and took the neighbors perspective by helping her out, if overly-aggressively. The first person, mouthing ‘you don’t belong here’ if accurately described, sounds like a poster child for better mental health services, and quite possibly was acting out of racism, though what her motivation was for that whacked-out behavior is unclear.
It’s not clear to me why Lam continued to hang out, except to want to clear his name. If he left it would have been over. I’ve had that feeling of being wronged and hanging out to prove myself right to authorities and done so. If that was the motivation I do understand it.
The fact that Lam was in the same area from 2008-2013 and “never encountered anything like this,” shows that this isn’t widespread in the northeastern Davis, unless there has been an influx of Karen’s in the last seven years. If “Davis Karen” really was motivated/triggered by seeing a person of Asian persuasion on their cell phone walking down the street in Davis, she’s going to be quite busy clogging the DPD dispatcher lines.
Is this real Karenism, or a case of “fishing for Karens”? My jury is out on that, as I don’t know what’s not in this woman’s heart, or what isn’t working in her head. Certainly not a candidate for the best opening line award.
I’m gonna take a bike ride out to Moore Village later today to get an ‘on the ground perspective’. And I’m bringing my ‘Karen Cam’.
I don’t think the police handled it appropriately – she seemed to lack awareness of the Karening phenomenon. I think people need to not confront others in situations such as this. In broad daylight there really isn’t a safety risk. Also, there is the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center that the police have a relationship with, the officer should have offered those services to Dr. Lam as a way to meet with the police callers and she didn’t offer that as an alternative. This would have been a perfect scenario for Restorative Justice – Dr. Lam practically begged for it.
“she” being ‘Davis Karen’ or one of the two cops?
I think people should not do a lot of things, but good luck to either of us controlling what other people do.
I think this goes way beyond if there was a safety risk. If the pre-recording part of the story is as stated, there is likely a mental-health issue here. The women’s actions were not rational.
This isn’t a trick question. I really don’t understand what aspect of this would be helped by involving YCRC. Are you referring to Lam vs. police or Lam vs. ‘Davis Karen’ ? And what do you feel needs resolution?
Isn’t restorative justice in relation to a crime being committed? I don’t see what you feel would be resolved with RJ. Can RJ even be evoked in a situation where no one is cited?
Eggggzactly, unless hurt feelings are subject to these programs.
YCRC can faciliate a discussion. In this case it seems like it should involve everyone that was part of the incident plus possibly the several people in this thread who blame Dr Lam for being assertive. De-escalation is useful, but normal people doing nothing should not be blamed for not doing it.
I am not sure if this will solve anything, but it should be tried.
Not taking a position regarding that, other than to be amused by the suggestion.
But now that I think about it, wasn’t Dr. Lam (also) involved?
Hopefully, we’ll all get to the bottom of this important story, in the days to come. 😉
I think the Vanguard itself needs a permanent, in-house “de-escalator”.
Alan… did you end up doing your ride-by? Curious as to your impressions, if you did… I might tomorrow, but not sure I know the exact/precise location… might bring a cam (and show it off) just to see if a middle-aged white guy gets a ‘reaction’ from the locals…
This seems to be a ‘tempest in a demi-tass (sp?) cup’…
Alan,
“If overly aggressively” I would not trivialize “aggression” in our brittle, inhospitable, and too often violent times. “An overly aggressive ” response has ended in the death of many, disproportionately people of color.
You may be correct…
But the account suggests that Dr Lam was ‘passive-aggressively‘ planning and taking several measures to “Karen” the two he encountered. The filming, posting, ‘daring’ the two to call the police, sticking around until PD responded, taping, then posting that, the “interview” with the VG… looks a tad disproportionate… more ‘restorative retaliation’ than any sense of ‘restorative justice’… [Yes, David, aimed at your account and subsequent comments]
I’m actually agreeing with you Tia, but, P-A aggression is still aggression… doesn’t justify anyone… just points out no one’s hands are ‘clean’… my tally is 3 folk who acted inappropriately…
I carry video cams all the time, Bill. I have seen too many incidents that go south because the perps, often police, know that they are invisible to the public. I have been saved from scams by my dash cam on three occasions now. I advise everyone to be prepared to record these kinds of encounters.
I agree with Bill. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
I, too, agree with WM.
JH, 1980 called and wants it’s video cameras back. What world are you living in where perps and/or police believe they are invisible to the public? Is that why people try to confiscate and/or knock video cameras out of people hands? I think everyone is aware of the ‘everyone has a cell phone with video’ phenom.
And, I acknowledge JH… Dad taught me ‘belt and suspenders’…
A video cam would have helped my white son at least twice… re: police interactions… once he and his white buddy were pulled over for a bank robbery, that all witnesses said was done by a pair of black males, different body morphs as well… would have helped me 10 X more in encounters with non-PD interactions… I hate to think everyone carrying video cams is the ‘new normal’… but we may be trending that way… more is the pity.
But I also appreciate affirmations made about this being (now that I think more) a “tempest in a pee-cup”… out of proportion to real issues… or real life…
BTW, when KO and AM affirm something I post, at the same time… sure sign of the end of the world… or, truth being told…
Bill
“To me, nothing in the article suggested Dr. Lam was being “passive-aggressive”. To me. he was being entirely defensive. Defensive of his own right to be where he was, doing what he was without progressive harassment from others. For me, it comes down to who had the right to be where they were. From the information presented, I would say all three of them equally.
Is ‘Karened’ a term that Dr. Lam used to describe the situation? (Quoting a term used by him)
Or a term that Vanguard adds for the headline? (Quoting a term the Vanguard tries to introduce to the reader)
Yes on Facebook he used the term.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to directly confront anyone (even in a “friendly” manner), if you think they’re “suspicious”.
That’s what the police are for. And most likely, dispatchers will ask a series of questions regarding what you see, in order to assess the situation (and to determine the appropriate level of response).
This is pretty much how Zimmerman got himself in trouble – not listening to the dispatcher. (Something along the lines of, “we don’t need you to do that”).
“Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to directly confront anyone (even in a “friendly” manner), if you think they’re “suspicious”.”
But of course the intent was to assert privilege.
“This is pretty much how Zimmerman got himself in trouble”
What trouble, he walked away. Trayvon Martin died.
Pretty skewed view.
From the photos (as I recall), Zimmerman appeared to have gotten the hell beaten out of him.
And then faced trial (and national outrage).
If I’m not mistaken, the cell-phone records noted that Martin observed a “cracker” following him. Turns out that Zimmerman was (partially?) of Hispanic heritage (as I recall), so perhaps that moniker and your claim of “privilege” is not accurate regarding that situation.
Since we’re talking about the best way to respond, that’s what I addressed.
“Since we’re talking about the best way to respond, that’s what I addressed.”
Nope you’re just rationalizing the murder of a young man by a thug.
Show me where I said that (or even implied it – in any way, shape or form).
And while you’re at it, explain how the situation in this article has anything to do with “privilege”.
FYI, class, we don’t use the word ‘thug’ anymore.
But “Karen” is okay.
If the pre-recorded account was as stated, I think the intent may have backfired. As outcomed, the women self-asserted that she was either racist or deranged or both.
JH… for the record, Zimmerman got himself into trouble, twice… probably (?) both times wearing his fantasy ‘super-hero undies’… “only” one unforgiveable (IMO) death… but he managed to ‘skate’… he is a jerk and a murderer, regardless of juries… OJ, same… different on details, but same/similar… there is ‘white privilege’ and ‘black famous athlete privilege’? Smells the same…
The color of privilege is green?
Yeah… often the ‘privilege’ is indeed ‘green’…
Ron,
In theory, I would agree with you but it is highly variable with index of suspicion and the difference between “confront” and ‘greet’. Since retiring, I spend a lot of time reading on my front porch. In my neighborhood, we have a well-known avid gardener, an individual who operates a pandemic appropriate home business, several student co-ops and are on a walkable route to the train station. Often people get confused or lost on their way to their destination and look around trying to orient themselves. If I called the police on everyone I thought might not “belong” here, they might as well station an officer here. Instead, my usual opener is, “You look lost. Can I help you”? I think a pleasantry will beat an accusation every time.
This also brings up an issue addressed in a recent article I read. Sorry I don’t recall the source. The issue is: who owns our public walks, streets, sidewalks, and open spaces. Unless you are in a gated, posted community, or on someone’s private property, my response is all of us, equally. And that should be our working premise when addressing someone we do not know.
For some people (not you), that appears to be the time that they start “noticing” too much around the neighborhood! (Semi-kidding.)
There is a difference between being suspicious of someone, vs. thinking they’re lost. You do have a point, in that even if they’re “up to no good”, your approach probably wouldn’t create a problem. Your neighborhood might also be “busier” than most, with more strangers passing through.
But again, police (generally) encourage citizens to reach out to them, if they’re suspicious of someone. I understand that dispatchers will then ask questions, to help them determine the appropriate level of response. (Sometimes, those questions might even encourage the caller to reconsider exactly what he or she is reporting.) And if you call the police very frequently, I believe they take that into consideration in their response.
Technically, I think that property owners (sometimes) “own” the sidewalks, but the public has an easement. Regardless, that is not an issue regarding what you’re referring to. (Though perhaps some “feel” differently.)
Some people don’t like it when you park in front of their house, either. One time, someone in an upscale Davis neighborhood put a note on my older vehicle, asking me not to park there anymore. (I only did so occassionally, in that neighborhood.) Rather than piss them off, I actually tried to avoid doing so from that point forward. (They claimed in their note that they were trying to sell their house.)
As a side note, I parked in that neighborhood again (more recently, but on a different street) and immediately attracted “attention” – some of it from a distance. Maybe some combination of my vehicle, and myself. (It appears to be a neighborhood where everyone knows who “belongs” there.)
No one called the police on me, but I felt uncomfortable, and wondered if my vehicle might be towed as a result of some parking restriction that I might not be aware of, but is put in place to discourage outsiders from parking there.
(As a side note, I recall that one of the neighbors who obviously noticed me was not white.)
As a side note, have you read White Fragility, yet?
No, but I don’t feel particularly “fragile” regarding this issue.
I might feel “fragile” if I parked in parts of Oakland, Richmond, or Stockton, though. So would your young doctor friend, most likely. Might not even have a chance to film anyone (or retain ownership of his cell phone).
Go ahead and cite any relevant points, if you’d like.
RO, if you hadn’t heard, it’s ‘required reading’ of all white people . . . according to a certain type of white person.
Thank God I’m Jewish.
Fragile isn’t something you ‘feel’, it’s something progressives label you as feeling.
Judge not, lest ye be judged, unlest ye be progressive. Their God, Chris, gives them a pass.
Sounds to me like the Fragility book should come in several different colors.
I’m (almost) curious enough to read that book, just to know what this refers to. Maybe David can provide a summary.
But already, the synopsis that I found and posted a link to seems to be off-base, and I didn’t “feel” any fragility (or defensiveness) in reading it.
“Chris” who?
And here I thought it was a former council member, instead. 😉
Don’t forget about the loon with the big cactus.
Not… but you are absolutely correct in making the former the FIRST MOVE… after that, if ignored or rebuffed… sorry, I’m going with the second option… call it a moral/mental defect… but pleasantries alone can come to horrible outcomes, depending on the individual, and time, place and manner…
There are situations where pleasantries will de-escalate… thee are times when those are no damn good, and you have to go to fight or flight… been in both types of situations…
The most unpleasant pleasantry is “May I Help You?” from a nosy stranger.
I have several times gone against the suggestions of the dispatcher. I know they have to say that stuff, but often the perps are going to get away if someone doesn’t follow them. I’m never going to confront dangerous perps though, that is stupid.
“Sir, please put the frozen fish down and walk away from the situation.” 😉