Black people arrested for sitting in a Starbucks

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What other controlling legal authority would be responsible for enforcing a no trespassing incident ?  

 

 

The local prosecutor comes to mind, but even they can choose not to pursue the case. Just because the cops can arrest someone doesn't mean they have to, unless of course there is a law that says they do. Maybe there is such a law in Pennsylvania. 

[F250 28775]

The black guys looked like they were being uppity with the cops. Cops don't like that shit which was probably why they arrested them. "Talking back" to cops usually results in being arrested or the threat of being arrested. I know this from experience.

Starbucks manager: acted out of racism.

Cops: natural assholes and probably acted out of a mixture of racism and assholeish tendencies.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The local prosecutor comes to mind, but even they can choose not to pursue the case. Just because the cops can arrest someone doesn't mean they have to, unless of course there is a law that says they do. Maybe there is such a law in Pennsylvania. 

I think we're talking 2 different things. You're talking prosecution, I was thinking at the cop level.  They have to respond and are supposed to at least remove the indivuals from the property correct ??

They definitely didn't need to arrest them, unless there's something we're not hearing that could have justified it ??

 

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

I think we're talking 2 different things. You're talking prosecution, I was thinking at the cop level.  They have to respond and are supposed to at least remove the indivuals from the property correct ??

They definitely didn't need to arrest them, unless there's something we're not hearing that could have justified it ??

 

I don't think so. 

[Elvis Presto 21]

why didnt they just spend a 1.95 on a coffee?  seems like that wouldve solved the problem.  

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Elvis Presto said:

why didnt they just spend a 1.95 on a coffee?  seems like that wouldve solved the problem.  

To quote the immortal words of Zach de la Rocha, "Fuck you. I won't do what you tell me."

[DigDug 1669]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

This is such a red herring.  Did I miss the part where Starbucks was refusing to serve them?  Because the story I read is that two black guys were refusing to custom the Starbucks. 

But let's assume Starbucks did violate a law - the cops should enforce the most immediate one first.  For example, if someone is stealing a car from a used car lot.   But the guy claims that car was stolen from him and sold to the dealership.  You arrest the dude for bulgary, then investigate his claim that it was stolen property.

Talk about a red fucking herring, or let's just say a complete bullshit example, you compare two guys sitting peacefully waiting for a friend to someone breaking into a vehicle.  Nice

I can tell you this, I've done this exact waiting and no ordering thing numerous times, including at starbucks, and have never been asked to leave or had the police called on me.

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 minute ago, DigDug said:

Talk about a red fucking herring, or let's just say a complete bullshit example, you compare two guys sitting peacefully waiting for a friend to someone breaking into a vehicle.  Nice

I can tell you this, I've done this exact waiting and no ordering thing numerous times, including at starbucks, and have never been asked to leave or had the police called on me.

hell, i've even gone to starbucks with someone and not ordered anything myself, and sat at a table with them while they drank their coffee.

but i'm white, so...

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 minutes ago, Elvis Presto said:

why didnt they just spend a 1.95 on a coffee?  seems like that wouldve solved the problem.  

Solved what problem?

As MLK said in his letter from a Birmingham jail:
An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself.

White people really shouldn't make a point to inform black people about how to more easily navigate a white supremacist society.

[Spankytoes 1739]

20 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

you must have. 

they were refused the bathroom code, because they weren't customers. they then sat down, to wait for their friend to arrive. then the manager called 911, without confronting the gentlemen. as the men were being arrested, a white woman was permitted the bathroom code prior to purchase. i mean, if you want to debate an issue, i usually respect your input, but at least read the fundamentals of the story.

I missed Pancho's post on Page 3, which is the only reference I found in my quick viewing. There's no issue to "debate". Racism is the most prevalent and/or falsely accused characterization, depending on what side of the issue you are on, of the internet age. It's a powerful tool for both sides. Once claimed, the argument is over.

Was the manager racist? Were the cops racist? I don't know. Race may very well have played a part in it. It's certainly suspicious. Starbucks has issued an apology and stated that the gentlemen should not have been arrested. Whether that was based on the facts or to save face, I don't know. The cops seem to think that they did nothing wrong. They certainly don't appear to be overly aggressive or physical in the video. Most likely, they followed through with the arrest because someone had the audacity not to quake in their presence and question their authority. I applaud those guys for doing so, especially in a calm manner.

The only debate to be had is what to do about racism. There's the P.C. answer and then there's the real answer: Let's stop pretending that negative stereotypes for each race aren't based in truths because they don't define every member. There are racist white guys. There are "thugs". We both need to work on our problems instead of ignoring them.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The only debate to be had is what to do about racism. There's the P.C. answer and then there's the real answer: Let's stop pretending that negative stereotypes for each race aren't based in truths because they don't define every member. There are racist white guys. There are "thugs". We both need to work on our problems instead of ignoring them.

The real answer to racism is to recognize that there is truth to negative racial stereotypes?  You'll have to unpack that one.  Why is that the answer to racism? 

[Brisketexan 105139]

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I was thinking at the cop level.  They have to respond and are supposed to at least remove the indivuals from the property correct ??

For the third time, NO, THEY DO NOT.

Think of it this way - when you say someone HAS to do something, you need to follow that with a mental "or else...."  In this case, or else what?  If the cops walk in, assess the situation, and refuse to arrest OR remove the person...what happens to the cops?  Does someone show up to arrest the cops?  Press charges on the cops for "not doing their duty?"  That's not a thing.

Cops are not REQUIRED to take EITHER of the suggested steps (removal or arrest).  Now, as a practical matter, if a property owner or manager asks someone to leave and they won't walk out on their own, the cops will almost always escort them off the property.  And if they refuse to go after a lawful order from a COP, then they may be arrested.  But it's also possible that the cops talk to everyone, go up to the manager, and say "WTF are you bitching about?  Don't call us and waste our time on bullshit like this."

[JBJ 3654]

16 minutes ago, DigDug said:

Talk about a red fucking herring, or let's just say a complete bullshit example, you compare two guys sitting peacefully waiting for a friend to someone breaking into a vehicle.  Nice

It was an example answering his question, you twat.  I didn't even try to equate the two sutuations.

Edited April 18, 2018 by JBJ

[JBJ 3654]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For the third time, NO, THEY DO NOT.

Think of it this way - when you say someone HAS to do something, you need to follow that with a mental "or else...."  In this case, or else what?  If the cops walk in, assess the situation, and refuse to arrest OR remove the person...what happens to the cops?  Does someone show up to arrest the cops?  Press charges on the cops for "not doing their duty?"  That's not a thing.

Cops are not REQUIRED to take EITHER of the suggested steps (removal or arrest).  Now, as a practical matter, if a property owner or manager asks someone to leave and they won't walk out on their own, the cops will almost always escort them off the property.  And if they refuse to go after a lawful order from a COP, then they may be arrested.  But it's also possible that the cops talk to everyone, go up to the manager, and say "WTF are you bitching about?  Don't call us and waste our time on bullshit like this."

Y'all keep conflating what's required by law and what's required by their job.  It's bullshit semantics and a terrible argument.

[Brisketexan 105139]

Just now, JBJ said:

Y'all keep conflating what's required by law and what's required by their job.  It's bullshit semantics and a terrible argument.

What the fuck point are you even making with that sentence?

Cops are not REQUIRED -- by either their job or the law (the fucking bizarre thing here is that the law IS their job -- the overlap is effectively 1:1) to arrest anyone.  Ever.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

This seems like a good primer covering what Brisket is talking about:

https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/

Training to Think

with Steve "Pappy" Papenfuhs

Addressing cops' confusion over 'the public duty doctrine'

Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers

Jan 5, 2012

Co-authored with Eric P. Daigle

The so-called public duty doctrine provides that “absent a special relationship between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual... the governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. The doctrine has been commonly described by the oxymoron, ‘duty to all, duty to none’.”1

The concept of “duty” establishes a great moral obligation in those who have taken an oath to serve and to protect the public. Officers are instilled with the principles of honor, integrity, and selflessness. As a result of these basic principles, officers often feel required to take action in certain situations when taking no action may actually be the best course of action. Often, officers believe that they have a legal obligation to act above and beyond what is actually required of them.

Law enforcement professionals’ lack of understanding of the legal principles of the public duty doctrine often leads to inappropriate actions on the part of the officer. In addition, the fear of liability for “failure to act,” and the personal code of honor that many sworn public servants hold, influences their decision take action at all costs to protect and defend life and property. While this desire to serve the public is commendable, police officers must understand that they have no obligation to protect any one individual unless a “special relationship” exists. Rather, an officer’s sworn duty is to the general public.

Confusion and Conflict 
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created, by his words or deeds, a danger to another, is not liable for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.2 The application of these general principles in the area of law enforcement and other police activities has produced some confusion and conflict. The confusion is further exacerbated by widely-held misconceptions concerning the duty owed by police to individual members of the general public.3

By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”4

Following these general principles, “California courts have found no duty of care and have denied liability ‘for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.’”5

The concept of a lack of any special duty owed to any individual member of society who is in need of assistance often flies in the face of law enforcement professionals who have taken an oath of office to “protect and defend.” The oath of office for law enforcement officers, however, as required by the California Constitution, does not mandate duty to an individual.6 Rather, the oath cites the support and defense of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”7

In Our Nature to Help 
While neither the California Constitution’s oath of office, nor the International Association of Chiefs of Police model oath of honor8, suggest that officers have duties other than the support and defense of the Constitution, and the maintenance of character, integrity, and public trust, no officer wants to see innocent individuals victimized or suffer harm of any sort.

One duty-dilemma issue, for example, may be the concern of contracting a fatal disease from performing CPR on a subject. Indeed, this is a real concern as just this past March, a deputy in Florida died five years after having contracted a virus while conducting CPR on an infant.9 Officers must discern the pros and cons of taking action in such a case to balance this unlikely tragic outcome against the more likely heartbreaking consequence of failing to act in a timely manner.

An officer’s misconception of his duty owed to the individual, however, may cause that officer to believe he has no choice but to provide assistance in the matter. While the officer is under no legal obligation to render aid to any one individual, once that officer decides to render aid to a victim, a special relationship may be established that produces a duty to an individual.

Examples from Case Law 
Federal and State case law provide, for example, that:

• a police officer’s failure, upon stopping an automobile, to advise the passenger to leave the vehicle and find other transportation was not an actionable breach of duty to the passenger10
• an officer owed no duty of care to a tow truck driver struck by a passing vehicle while working an accident scene because the officer did not create or increase the risk of harm that led to the injuries11 
• no duty existed where a police officer, upon responding to a disturbance, confiscated a gun that was later returned to the individual through department procedure and was used sometime thereafter to shoot the complainant because the initial seizure of the weapon did not establish a special relationship with complainant that would continue indefinitely12
• a police officer owed no duty to order an accident victim who had sustained a spinal injury not to leave the scene13
• police officers who recognized an assailant as a likely perpetrator of a prior assault, and conducted surveillance of assailant in a Laundromat in which the victim was present, did not establish a special relationship between the officers and the victim to impose a duty on the officers to protect the victim from the assailant14
• a police officer, who stopped a motorcyclist for speeding but did not perform field sobriety test, had no legal duty to use due care to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent the motorcyclist from continuing to drive, and therefore, was not liable when the driver was involved in an accident ten minutes later15

Courts typically find that no duty has been established and deny recovery for “injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.”16For example, a plaintiff was unable to establish a duty on behalf of police when police failed to respond to a plea for assistance forty-five minutes before a homicide.17

The courts, however, have found that police officers may create a “special relationship” with individuals in certain circumstances, thereby establishing a duty of care to that individual. This “special relationship” may be created when an officer performs an affirmative act which places a person in peril or increases the risk of harm. For example, an officer who investigated an accident and instructed an individual to follow him to the middle of the intersection, where the individual was hit by another car, established a duty of care for that person;18 a highway patrol officer established a duty to an individual when he parked his vehicle with lights engaged behind the stalled motorist, but later left the scene without warning the motorist who had relied upon his protection and was struck by another car.19

Departmental Policy 
Some departments have internal policies that stipulate the circumstances in which a special relationship may exist. The San Jose (Calif.) Police Department’s policy for rendering first aid, for example, states that officers who have begun rendering aid have created a special relationship with a victim and now have a duty to continue providing care unless one or more of the following conditions is present:

1.) The scene becomes unsafe, 
2.) The officer is too physically exhausted to continue, 
3.) The officer is relieved by someone of same or higher medical authority, or 
4.) The victim revives20

A source of confusion for some officers may be that while federal law is clear that there is no liability for failure to act when no special relationship exists between law enforcement and an individual, some liability may exist in certain situations where the state legislature enacts laws mandating an officer’s duty to take action.21 One such state-mandated duty to an individual arises in the area of domestic violence. Throughout the country for many years, officers failed to take seriously the dangers of family violence. As a result, states enacted legislation mandating special provisions and protections for victims of child and spousal abuse. 22 As further documented in the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training domestic violence workbook23, these requirements include that officers shall make every reasonable effort to identify the “dominant aggressor,” shall complete a report in all domestic violence cases, and shall take custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight.

A Solemn Pledge 
While legislated exceptions to the public duty doctrine exist, the officer must still understand that in only certain circumstances will he be exposed to liability for failure to act. This misunderstanding can lead an officer to take inappropriate action which violates an individual’s constitutional rights and could ultimately lead to litigation against the officer and the department.

Law enforcement personnel are moral and honorable public servants. Most sworn officers take their oaths of office as a solemn pledge — a pledge to safeguard life and property. Officers lose their lives every day attempting to fulfill this oath. Officers, however, often put themselves at risk because they incorrectly believe that they have a duty to act when, in fact, no such duty exists. Officers must balance the pros and cons of taking action against the rights, responsibilities, and the limitations of the profession imposed upon them by the Constitution, statute, and case law.

Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers. The training should include a full and comprehensive review of the exceptions to this doctrine and any statutory requirements to act or protect individuals, as well as those situations in which, through an officer’s actions or omissions, create a “special relationship” resulting in a duty to persons.

References
1 Glover, D. (2006). Public duty doctrine in state tort claims act cases. Retrieved March 20th, 2011 from Teague & Glover, P.A. website: http://www.teagueandgloverlaw.com/media/Public_Duty_Doctrine_State_Tort_Claims_Act_cases.pdf
2 Rest.2d Torts, § 314; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (8th ed.) Torts, § 554, p. 2821.) 
3 Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d 18 (1983.) 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
6 California Constitution, Article XX, § 3 provides, in pertinent part: “I, .........., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.” 
7 Id. 
8 The IACP oath of honor format provides: On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve. http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/WhatistheLawEnforcementOathofHonor/tabid/150/Default.aspx
9 Weiner, J. (2011). Orange County deputy dies from illness he caught trying to save infant, Sheriff's Office says. The Palm Beach Post News. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/orange-county-deputy-dies-from-illness-he-caught-1327335.html?sort=desc (retrieved 03/20/11.) 
10 City of Sunnyvale v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.3d 839 (1988). 
11 Minch . California Highway Patrol, 140 Cal.App.4th 895 (2006). 
12 Baker v. City of Los Angeles, 188 Cal.App.3d 902 (1986). 
13 Camp v. State of California, 184 Cal.App.4th 967 (2010). 
14 Davidson v. City of Westminster, 649 P.2d 894 (1982). 
15 Hucko v. City of San Diego, 179 Cal.App.3d 520 (1986).d 
16 Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d at 25. 
17 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 872 (1975). 
18 McCorkle v. Los Angeles, 449 P.2d 453 (1969). 
19 Mann v. State, 70 Cal.App.3d 773 (1977). 
20 San Jose Police Department, (2008). Peace officer first aid & cpr guide. San Jose, CA: 
21 Cal.Gov.Code § 815.6 (“Mandatory Duty of Public Entity to Protect Against Particular Kinds of Injuries”); See also, Avery, M., Rudovsky, D., Blum, K. (2008). Police misconduct law and litigation (3rd ed.). Eagan, MN: Thompson Reuters/West 
22 Cal. Penal Code § 11166(k). 
23 California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (2006). Domestic violence (5.2 Ed.). Sacramento, CA: 

About Eric P. Daigle 
Attorney Daigle practices civil litigation in federal and state court, with an emphasis on defending municipalities and public officials. He focuses civil rights actions, including police misconduct litigation and employment actions, as well as premises and general tort liability cases. Mr. Daigle acts as legal advisor to police departments in the State of Connecticut and outside the state providing legal advice to law enforcement command staff and officers in the areas of legal liability, policy drafting, employment issues, use of force, laws of arrest and search and seizure. His experience focuses on officers’ use of force, specifically in the training, investigation and supervision of force and deadly force incidents involving law enforcement. He currently serves as a member of the Oakland California Independent Monitoring Team and works with Law Enforcement Agencies who are under investigation or under a Consent Decree by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Litigation Section. Attorney Daigle is the General Counsel for FBI-LEEDA, and the New England Tactical Officers Association. He is a former member of the Connecticut State Police and currently maintains his certification as a reserve officer.

About the author

Steve “Pappy” Papenfuhs is the CEO of Battalion Defensewhich distributes premier armor, armor carriers, ballistic helmets and shields, and other tactical kit. Pappy retired as a sergeant after serving 29 years with the San Jose, California Police Department. During his career he worked Patrol, Field Training (FTO), Street Crimes, SWAT, Auto Theft, Sexual Assaults, Narcotics, Family Violence, and supervised the department’s in-service Training Division. He holds a Force Analysis certification from the Force Science Research Center, and is a certified instructor with the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) in several disciplines including: Firearms, Defensive Tactics, Baton, Force Options, and Emergency Vehicle Operations (EVOC). In addition to running Battalion Defense and teaching both academy recruits and in-service officers, Pappy provides expert witness consultation in police practices, use of force, and training issues.

 

[JBJ 3654]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What the fuck point are you even making with that sentence?

Cops are not REQUIRED -- by either their job or the law (the fucking bizarre thing here is that the law IS their job -- the overlap is effectively 1:1) to arrest anyone.  Ever.

I wasn't disagreeing with your post.  "Y'all" meant other people - mostly Dennison.  If cops only did what they were legally required to do, they wouldn't respond to any calls.

 

That being said, it's difficult for me to come up with a reasonable scenario where a cop refuses to remove someone who the owner says is trespassing.

Edited April 18, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13195]

31 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The only debate to be had is what to do about racism. There's the P.C. answer and then there's the real answer: Let's stop pretending that negative stereotypes for each race aren't based in truths because they don't define every member. There are racist white guys. There are "thugs". We both need to work on our problems instead of ignoring them.

Amazing.

Edited April 18, 2018 by bad_teammate

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Amazing.

It's easy to portray negative stereotypes as no big deal when you are a member of the politically dominant ethnic group.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What they should have done when the rest of their party showed up and they were ready to place their order was to talk to the manager and tell him they're ready to order so we're outta here. 

That's exactly what they did, from my watching of the longer video. Hard to hear what people are saying on it, but I'm pretty sure when gray vest guy shows up while cops are getting ready to arrest the black guys, gray vest guy says, OK, let them go and we'll just go somewhere else. Cop says, no, they already had their chance to do that and they didn't do it. Or something like that. Then the crowd of cops slaps the cuffs on them. Respect my authoritah!

Edited April 18, 2018 by Bat Guano

[Spankytoes 1739]

29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The real answer to racism is to recognize that there is truth to negative racial stereotypes?  You'll have to unpack that one.  Why is that the answer to racism? 

I can't speak from a minority's perspective because I'm white. I can only speculate.

We all agree that racism exists. We do not all agree on why it still exists. As a white guy, I'm supposed to hang my head in shame and accept that I have some special delegation bestowed upon me called "Privilege". Because of said anointment, facts now cease to be true but are now racist statements aimed at oppressing whatever minority group we are discussing. I'm not supposed to say "Well, I bet these cops are used to dealing with a pretty bad criminal element in the black community so I can imagine it's hard to snap out of that mindset in the heat of the moment" because that paints all black people as mindless criminals, when clearly they are not, even though statistics show that blacks commit over 40% of the murders in this country despite accounting for 12% of the population. You're supposed to cheer on Black Lives Matter because the message is great for a bumper sticker and we can all agree that blacks should not be killed by police simply for being black. But you're not supposed to point out that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, all of whom are not law enforcement officers. And that black citizens killed by white law enforcement officers happens less frequently in a year than the weekly murder rate in the black community in Chicago, which doesn't receive the same level of disdain and protests. Then there's that word: Black Community. White people are supposed to be so progressive that they have no problem mingling with other races. Yet, and be honest, would you willingly own a house or send your kids to school in a predominantly minority neighborhood if you had other options? Even the people that live there are looking for a way out.

The problem, as I see it, is that people suppress these feelings because they are shitty to have. I feel the exact opposite. I would love nothing more than for everyone to be equal, regardless of your skin color. But, each side has to have their moral high ground. People are going to claim things as racist that were not intended that way and others are going to ignore that racism is a problem because they feel the card has been played one too many times. If you think that people aren't tired of being told how to feel, you obviously missed the last Presidential race. 

Unless we recognize the base for the issue, how can we solve it? As a white guy, other than an altruistic opportunity, what would be the incentive? The deck's allegedly in my favor.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

I can't speak from a minority's perspective because I'm white. I can only speculate. We all agree that racism exists. We do not all agree on why it still exists. As a white guy, I'm supposed to hang my head in shame and accept that I have some special delegation bestowed upon me called "Privilege". Because of said anointment, facts now cease to be true but are now racist statements aimed at oppressing whatever minority group we are discussing. I'm not supposed to say "Well, I bet these cops are used to dealing with a pretty bad criminal element in the black community so I can imagine it's hard to snap out of that mindset in the heat of the moment" because that paints all black people as mindless criminals, when clearly they are not, even though statistics show that blacks commit over 40% of the murders in this country despite accounting for 12% of the population. You're supposed to cheer on Black Lives Matter because the message is great for a bumper sticker and we can all agree that blacks should not be killed by police simply for being black. But you're not supposed to point out that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, all of whom are not law enforcement officers. And that black citizens killed by white law enforcement officers happens less frequently in a year than the weekly murder rate in the black community in Chicago, which doesn't receive the same level of disdain and protests. Then there's that word: Black Community. White people are supposed to be so progressive that they have no problem mingling with other races. Yet, and be honest, would you willingly own a house or send your kids to school in a predominantly minority neighborhood if you had other options? Even the people that live there are looking for a way out.

The problem, as I see it, is that people suppress these feelings because they are shitty to have. I feel the exact opposite. I would love nothing more than for everyone to be equal, regardless of your skin color. But, each side has to have their moral high ground. People are going to claim things as racist that were not intended that way and others are going to ignore that racism is a problem because they feel the card has been played one too many times. If you think that people aren't tired of being told how to feel, you obviously missed the last Presidential race. 

Unless we recognize the base for the issue, how can we solve it? As a white guy, other than an altruistic opportunity, what would be the incentive? The deck's allegedly in my favor.

 

If you want to do some unpacking why not do all the unpacking instead of this partial treatment where you pat yourself for dispensing "truths"? Ask yourself how is it that such a disproportionate amount of blacks find themselves in such densely impoverished areas. Areas of dense impoverishment always yield higher rates of crime that's a fact of the human condition.  

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

 

—"As a white guy, I'm supposed to hang my head in shame and accept that I have some special delegation bestowed upon me called "Privilege"."

Yes on the acceptance, no on the head-hanging or shame.

—"I'm not supposed to say "Well, I bet these cops are used to dealing with a pretty bad criminal element in the black community so I can imagine it's hard to snap out of that mindset in the heat of the moment" 

Because that's a dumb argument when you are talking about normal-looking black guys sitting quietly at a Starbucks table waiting for a friend. It's not exactly a typical crime scenario. 

—"even though statistics show that blacks commit over 40% of the murders in this country despite accounting for 12% of the population."

How many of those started Pulp Fiction style with two black guys standing up from a Starbucks table and screaming "I'm gonna kill every last motherfucking one of ya!"? 

You are free to discuss stats.  But if you're applying them completely out of context, where the only shared factor is skin color, you're going to get called out for making a dishonest statistical argument.

—"But you're not supposed to point out that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, all of whom are not law enforcement officers. And that black citizens killed by white law enforcement officers happens less frequently in a year than the weekly murder rate in the black community in Chicago, which doesn't receive the same level of disdain and protests."

More self-imposed rules.  Why exactly can't you talk about it?  People talk about it all the time.   And there are plenty of efforts to reduce black-on-black crime, including within the black community.  But the police are a special case; our government cloaks them with special authority, and we pay their salaries.  They have to be held to a higher standard and to public account.  I can avoid dangerous areas, but I have to pull over for a cop, and that's a special danger. 

—"Yet, and be honest, would you willingly own a house or send your kids to school in a predominantly minority neighborhood if you had other options?" 

Sure, if race was the only factor.  I wouldn't live in an economically shitty neighborhood if I could avoid it, but there are plenty of shitty white neighborhoods that would fall within that description too. 

—"If you think that people aren't tired of being told how to feel, you obviously missed the last Presidential race." 

If you don't think actual racism was a big part of that, then it was you who obviously missed the last Presidential race. 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

Spanky, you are not supposed to "hang your head in shame" regarding privilege. That's your defensive reaction to it.  But you should try to  recognize and be fully aware of it, and take appropriate action moving forward.  All of us should.

I'd love to get into the rest of your post, but I'd spend way too much time typing it up.  Maybe later but I'm sure others will chime in with thoughts that echo mine.  Catdaddyhorn touched on one of them. 

 

[Spankytoes 1739]

2 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

If you want to do some unpacking why not do all the unpacking instead of this partial treatment where you pat yourself for dispensing "truths"? Ask yourself how is it that such a disproportionate amount of blacks find themselves in such densely impoverished areas. Areas of dense impoverishment always yield higher rates of crime that's a fact of the human condition.  

 

 

That’s definitely another layer, and a great point. It’s a chicken and the egg argument though. Whites have to take responsibility for a few centuries of oppression. But, are things like the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action effective? What about the NAACP? There are currently more scholarships available to black students than there are black students in college. At what point does a flawed and rigged system cease to be the issue and at what juncture is there any real call to action to change it? Further, what will fix the problem? Money for better schools in poorer districts? The attendance rate doesn’t support that argument. That also supposed that the average white person is living well beyond the poverty line. No, not by much.

its frustrating. I just dint buy the media’s narrative. 

[Spankytoes 1739]

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

—"As a white guy, I'm supposed to hang my head in shame and accept that I have some special delegation bestowed upon me called "Privilege"."

Yes on the acceptance, no on the head-hanging or shame.

—"I'm not supposed to say "Well, I bet these cops are used to dealing with a pretty bad criminal element in the black community so I can imagine it's hard to snap out of that mindset in the heat of the moment" 

Because that's a dumb argument when you are talking about normal-looking black guys sitting quietly at a Starbucks table waiting for a friend. It's not exactly a typical crime scenario. 

—"even though statistics show that blacks commit over 40% of the murders in this country despite accounting for 12% of the population."

How many of those started Pulp Fiction style with two black guys standing up from a Starbucks table and screaming "I'm gonna kill every last motherfucking one of ya!"? 

You are free to discuss stats.  But if you're applying them completely out of context, where the only shared factor is skin color, you're going to get called out for making a dishonest statistical argument.

—"But you're not supposed to point out that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, all of whom are not law enforcement officers. And that black citizens killed by white law enforcement officers happens less frequently in a year than the weekly murder rate in the black community in Chicago, which doesn't receive the same level of disdain and protests."

More self-imposed rules.  Why exactly can't you talk about it?  People talk about it all the time.   And there are plenty of efforts to reduce black-on-black crime, including within the black community.  But the police are a special case; our government cloaks them with special authority, and we pay their salaries.  They have to be held to a higher standard and to public account.  I can avoid dangerous areas, but I have to pull over for a cop, and that's a special danger. 

—"Yet, and be honest, would you willingly own a house or send your kids to school in a predominantly minority neighborhood if you had other options?" 

Sure, if race was the only factor.  I wouldn't live in an economically shitty neighborhood if I could avoid it, but there are plenty of shitty white neighborhoods that would fall within that description too. 

—"If you think that people aren't tired of being told how to feel, you obviously missed the last Presidential race." 

If you don't think actual racism was a big part of that, then it was you who obviously missed the last Presidential race. 

I disagree with some of what you said but don’t have time to go point by point. I will say that you are flat out wrong regarding the argument of stats being out of context. If your wife chimes in on logic, do you not have a preconceived bias? If your last 2 girlfriends fucked your friends, would you have trust issues with the next one? Hell, if someone says that they’re from Oklahoma, do you not factor that into your receptiveness? Race is inescapable. Not all criminals are of the “I can do a dime in Attica po-po” variety either. 

Make no mistake, I’m not in any way saying that this excuses their actions. But, I can somewhat see the issue. You’re trying to do your job and come home alive at the end of the day. Some deal with that concept better than others. Some are just power hungry dicks. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I disagree with some of what you said but don’t have time to go point by point. I will say that you are flat out wrong regarding the argument of stats being out of context. If your wife chimes in on logic, do you not have a preconceived bias? If your last 2 girlfriends fucked your friends, would you have trust issues with the next one? Hell, if someone says that they’re from Oklahoma, do you not factor that into your receptiveness? Race is inescapable. Not all criminals are of the “I can do a dime in Attica po-po” variety either. 

Make no mistake, I’m not in any way saying that this excuses their actions. But, I can somewhat see the issue. You’re trying to do your job and come home alive at the end of the day. Some deal with that concept better than others. Some are just power hungry dicks. 

Oh I have no doubt that they hold racist biases.  But I don't think it's based on a careful, disinterested and reasonable analysis of crime statistics.  Particularly when encountering a situation like this one. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

That’s definitely another layer, and a great point. It’s a chicken and the egg argument though. Whites have to take responsibility for a few centuries of oppression. But, are things like the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action effective? What about the NAACP? There are currently more scholarships available to black students than there are black students in college. At what point does a flawed and rigged system cease to be the issue and at what juncture is there any real call to action to change it? Further, what will fix the problem? Money for better schools in poorer districts? The attendance rate doesn’t support that argument. That also supposed that the average white person is living well beyond the poverty line. No, not by much.
its frustrating. I just dint buy the media’s narrative. 

How bout we stop segregating people out to the point where they are isolated from the rest of society, segregated from commerce and the ability to find a good job, segregated to the point that the chance of any level of assimilation is damn near impossible. All these ailments of dysfunction that you pretend are traits specifically endemic to black people are actually what happens to any all people when you isolate them from the rest of society and pack them into impoverished communities for generations. We're still as segregated today as we were in 1960 yet people think all good deeds without real substance will make things better.

[Fozzz 152]

If you believe that black people are provided with the same opportunities as whites but still fail, then what exactly is your explanation for that phenomenon?  If you believe it is because "black culture" is defective, then how did that come to be?  

[Spankytoes 1739]

7 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

31 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

That’s definitely another layer, and a great point. It’s a chicken and the egg argument though. Whites have to take responsibility for a few centuries of oppression. But, are things like the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action effective? What about the NAACP? There are currently more scholarships available to black students than there are black students in college. At what point does a flawed and rigged system cease to be the issue and at what juncture is there any real call to action to change it? Further, what will fix the problem? Money for better schools in poorer districts? The attendance rate doesn’t support that argument. That also supposed that the average white person is living well beyond the poverty line. No, not by much.
its frustrating. I just dint buy the media’s narrative. 

Read more  

How bout we stop segregating people out to the point where they are isolated from the rest of society, segregated from commerce and the ability to find a good job, segregated to the point that the chance of any level of assimilation is damn near impossible. All these ailments of dysfunction that you pretend are traits specifically endemic to black people are actually what happens to any all people when you isolate them from the rest of society and pack them into impoverished communities for generations. We're still as segregated today as we were in 1960 yet people think all good deeds without real substance will make things better.

Great. I’m all for it.

How do we accomplish it? Better yet, how do we accomplish it in a fashion that doesn’t isolate whites for not being extended those special privileges and doesn’t make a black guy question if the benefit was gained on merit or because he was the beneficiary of low expectations? 

The painful truth is that the stats don’t support the arguments being made, which are emotional in nature. There isn’t a wide gap in pay between men and women. Black executives are proportionitate to the numbers in society. The highlight reel, as with everything, is on the negative because that’s what sells stories. It doesn’t discount the need for change, but it certainly ignores any shred of progress being made. We aren’t exactly in the “blacks cant get a bank loan” era anymore.

Anyhow, I’ve kind of distracted from the thread. I missed the tidbit about the other lady using the bathroom and not ordering anything, which leads more credence to the claim.

[Huckleberry 32861]

Haven't police argued in court that they have no duty or obligation to intervene in an ongoing crime?

[Spankytoes 1739]

15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you believe that black people are provided with the same opportunities as whites but still fail, then what exactly is your explanation for that phenomenon?  If you believe it is because "black culture" is defective, then how did that come to be?  

Because the opportunity is not taken advantage of at the same rate? What are the stats for the number of white kids attending college vs. the number of black kids. Graduation rates and for what degrees? Same question for starting your own business. 

You are twisting my words a bit. There are plenty of examples of white kids failing. Look no further than the average savings of Americans and their 401K outlook. The top reason for not saving more? I can’t afford to. This is why I say “Privilege” not Privilege. It’s a case by case instance, not an institutional occurrence. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Spankytoes

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Great. I’m all for it.

How do we accomplish it? Better yet, how do we accomplish it in a fashion that doesn’t isolate whites for not being extended those special privileges and doesn’t make a black guy question if the benefit was gained on merit or because he was the beneficiary of low expectations? 

The painful truth is that the stats don’t support the arguments being made, which are emotional in nature. There isn’t a wide gap in pay between men and women. Black executives are proportionitate to the numbers in society. The highlight reel, as with everything, is on the negative because that’s what sells stories. It doesn’t discount the need for change, but it certainly ignores any shred of progress being made. We aren’t exactly in the “blacks cant get a bank loan” era anymore.

Anyhow, I’ve kind of distracted from the thread. I missed the tidbit about the other lady using the bathroom and not ordering anything, which leads more credence to the claim.

But you're the one getting emotional.  You're having an emotional reaction to the concept of white privilege and implicit biases and all of that.  It's not inherently "isolating" to whites.  I'm white; I don't feel isolated or personally ashamed that I exist while acknowledging the racism in our society.   The things you are mocking and getting defensive about ARE how we accomplish it. 

(And I'm not attacking your personally.  Just addressing your arguments.) 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Because the opportunity is not taken advantage of at the same rate? What are the stats for the number of white kids attending college vs. the number of black kids. Graduation rates and for what degrees? Same question for starting your own business. 

You are twisting my words a bit. There are plenty of examples of white kids failing. Look no further than the average savings of Americans and their 401K outlook. The top reason for not saving more? I can’t afford to. This is why I say “Privilege” not Privilege. It’s a case by case instance, not an institutional occurrence. 

Why are they not taken advantage of at the same rate?  You are just restating the issue, not providing an explanation.  

[Spankytoes 1739]

15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But you're the one getting emotional.  You're having an emotional reaction to the concept of white privilege and implicit biases and all of that.  It's not inherently "isolating" to whites.  I'm white; I don't feel isolated or ashamed while acknowledging the racism in our society.   The things you are mocking and getting defensive about ARE how we accomplish it. 

(And I'm not attacking your personally.  Just addressing your arguments.) 

Nah, you’re being totally respectful and I appreciate it. Disagreement is good. 

Emotion cannot be devoid from the argument. Being called a racist when you’re not really sucks. Being the victim of actual racism sucks more. Neither has any place in dictating actual policy though. Racism and acceptance isn’t something that you can force feed or “shame” people into complying with a viewpoint. You act within the bounds of free speech and go from there. For example, no one had an issue with TSA after 9/11. Further, if it means we catch the next shoe bomber, people were ok with getting dirty socks at the airport. Now the government has monotized our ability to go back to pre-9/11 days. The outdated policy, which has been completely ineffective, was reactionary.

I fucking hate Ben Shapiro, but I’m going to steal his catchphrase: Facts don’t have feelings. Laws aren’t supposed to be PR moves.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Spankytoes

[Spankytoes 1739]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why are they not taken advantage of at the same rate?  You are just restating the issue, not providing an explanation.  

You’re asking me to provide a response from the view of a black person. Further, you’re proposing that answer would be blanket across the board. I cannot do that any better than I could explain what labor pains feel like. It sounds like you have a response locked and loaded. Go ahead and release so we can cut to the chase. 

[Chrispy 132]

18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you believe that black people are provided with the same opportunities as whites but still fail, then what exactly is your explanation for that phenomenon?  If you believe it is because "black culture" is defective, then how did that come to be?  

Unfortunately, many black People aren’t afforded the same opportunities as whites, but to say it’s all systemic racism is untrue. The breakdown of the family structure, in my view, is the single biggest problem facing the black community. Fathers not staying around to raise their children results in single parent households that are often very poor.

Stressing the importance of education may help to fix the issue, but again, that’s asking a lot of a single mother struggling to make ends meet. However, as whites we aren’t allowed to point these problems out. Sitting back and pretending it’s whitey holding them down is the least effective solution, but it makes everyone feel better. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

However, as whites we aren’t allowed to point these problems out. Sitting back and pretending it’s whitey holding them down is the least effective solution, but it makes everyone feel better. 

You are way out of touch with any actual debate going on. Whitey holding them down?  Unbelievable. 

[Brian Fantana 6687]

It's always funny when people claim to not be able to express their stupid fucking uneducated retarded white victimhood laced views while doing just that.

[Fozzz 152]

11 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Unfortunately, many black People aren’t afforded the same opportunities as whites, but to say it’s all systemic racism is untrue. The breakdown of the family structure, in my view, is the single biggest problem facing the black community. Fathers not staying around to raise their children results in single parent households that are often very poor.

Stressing the importance of education may help to fix the issue, but again, that’s asking a lot of a single mother struggling to make ends meet. However, as whites we aren’t allowed to point these problems out. Sitting back and pretending it’s whitey holding them down is the least effective solution, but it makes everyone feel better. 

If that is the case, then why did child poverty decrease and educational attainment increase during the same period when marriage rates began falling precipitously?  

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/moynihan-half-century-brief-report/

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You are way out of touch with any actual debate going on. Whitey holding them down?  Unbelievable. 

No, I gave a response as to why the black community aren’t afforded the same opportunities as whites. The answer is actually very simple, black fathers need to stick around after insemination.

When 70% of Black babies are born out of wedlock, that’s a full blown crisis. Funny how white politicians won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Gee, I wonder why? Yeah, I’m the one out of touch. Get a grip. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Man, the guy with the Revenge of the Nerds avatar really has this whole race thing figured out. Bravo. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Out of wedlock doesn't mean no involved or even live-in father.  What are those numbers? 

[bad_teammate 13195]

45 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why are they not taken advantage of at the same rate?  You are just restating the issue, not providing an explanation.  

It's because racists are intellectual and moral cowards. Can't answer direct questions. #sad

[David Dennison 18860]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

No, I gave a response as to why the black community aren’t afforded the same opportunities as whites. The answer is actually very simple, black fathers need to stick around after insemination.

When 70% of Black babies are born out of wedlock, that’s a full blown crisis. Funny how white politicians won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Gee, I wonder why? Yeah, I’m the one out of touch. Get a grip. 

What do you propose we do about the full blown crisis?

[bad_teammate 13195]

White people who unironically use "whitey" as a word to characterize black thought or arguments are being racist.

Quote

For example, no one had an issue with TSA after 9/11. 

Objectively fuckin' false.

Quote

Being called a racist when you’re not really sucks. Being the victim of actual racism sucks more. Neither has any place in dictating actual policy though. Racism and acceptance isn’t something that you can force feed or “shame” people into complying with a viewpoint. You act within the bounds of free speech and go from there.

If you find yourself being called racist a lot, there's probably a reason.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

53 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

For example, no one had an issue with TSA after 9/11.

Thanks BT, I missed out on this one. I have to ask anyone who says this if they're fucking 15 years old, because people were losing their shit over how the TSA was acting post-9/11.

[Chrispy 132]

29 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If that is the case, then why did child poverty decrease and educational attainment increase during the same period when marriage rates began falling precipitously?  

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/moynihan-half-century-brief-report/

I’ve read countless studies expressing how dire the situation is, but I guess congrats? Blacks are least likely to graduate high school and more likely to live in poverty by a large margin. Yes, this single parent household has served them well. 

[Chrispy 132]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What do you propose we do about the full blown crisis?

Fathers sticking around and raising their children, pretty simple formula. 

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Chrispy said:

Fathers sticking around and raising their children, pretty simple formula. 

So just say words and not do anything.

That seems like a really good policy.