Racism - It's a real thing.

[Mierin]

Now THAT makes sense for a valid complaint.   I mean, if this second Starbucks denied the black guy for lack of purchase, then then allows white guys bathroom privileges without purchases, then it's clearly a case of bias.  

My point above in regards to the first Starbucks was: Can't a store deny a person use of their restrooms if they don't make a purchase? I've had clerks tell me that I couldn't use their bathroom unless I made a purchase.  So I made a purchase.  Or I let them know I would be making a purchase shortly.  If the guys in the first Starbucks had simply said they would be buying coffee as soon as their friend showed up then it wouldn't have turned into a whole s#!tstorm. 

Without reading again, I believe the same thing happened at the first Starbucks.

Ok I looked it up - this is from the original incident:
 

Lauren said another woman had entered the Starbucks minutes before the men were arrested and was given the bathroom code without having to buy anything and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything."

This backs up the idea that the police were called because they were black, not because they were doing anything they don't let other customers do.

To the bolded - it seems like you're making an assumption that they didn't say anything to that effect.

 

[funhusker]

Starbucks sucks.....

And apparently they also have some crappy people working for them just like every other company around the country.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I know that you have a pretty low opinion of me, and I get why. Some of my past posts were unnecessary and wrong, I admitted it and reached out to you to try and rectify it as best as possible. 

However, in this thread I posted a video that I found interesting and thought related to how people of different races have a different experience with police. You responded to it by calling me lame and saying my post is BS. I tried to engage you in a civil manner and give other examples, and you continue to call it all BS.  

Maybe the damage has been done so that a conversation about this can't be had between you and I which is unfortunate, and I acknowledge my role in that. I would actually very much enjoy an open conversation about this topic as it is important to a lot of people in this country. 

In no way shape or form did I call you lame, I called your post lame and said it was B.S. I stand by that..........

You are again painting things with a broad brush with the bolded as the example above. Now you're trying to say that white folks have a better experience with the police than minorities which just simply isn't necessarily true in that broad of a sense. I am in no way shape or form trying to diminish what some folks are saying in reference to how they're treated by some officers across the country, I'm certain that some of that stuff goes on, but I'm also certain some folks will use any excuse to justify their behavior and slant their interactions with the police so any observer will side with them and sympathize with their poor decision making. 

I will argue with ANYONE about the topic if they try to paint this picture "Police are racist."  Watching that video, what you're saying is your opinion and in no way should be taken as fact. You simply don't have any idea what would happen if a minority would've been the suspect in this case. You are making an assumption and, most likely, and incorrect assumption at that. 

You say you found the video interesting, your post certainly didn't even allow a rational discussion to occur on the matter. It was simply a "fire for effect" type of post IMO which is certainly going to get a response from me as I've shown in the past. Yes, your past posting history on the matter is certainly in my mind when you continue to show the same distaste for police over and over again from what I've observed. So it is you that doesn't seem to want to have an open discussion in the matter and even attempt to see my point of view. I certainly take offense to being painted with a broad brush and will continue to do so until folks stop doing that. 

I've acknowledged in the past that law enforcement can always get better and we should constantly be looking for better ways of doing things. However, I've also said that society as a whole needs to understand what it's doing wrong, be willing to have a little self-reflection, and change their behavior for things to get better. This is NOT a one-way street where only one side is at fault for all the wrongs. Law enforcement unfairly gets the blame most of the time and society is losing good cops on a daily basis because of that. 

 

[Enhance]

I think we always need to be careful about correlating events in different parts of the country involving different groups of people.

Case in point, I think it's pretty disheartening and inappropriate to post a video of officers fighting a white male and indirectly submit it as evidence of racial bias among law enforcement. I'm specifically referencing the Twitter user, but I disagree with Fru's appropriation of it as well. We don't know a thing about those officers or that man. We don't know anything about why that situation unfolded as it did.

Perhaps they are racist officers and a minority man would've caused the situation to unfold differently. Or, perhaps they're really damn good at doing their job and protecting everyone in the community. Context over martyrdom.

 

[Fru]

In no way shape or form did I call you lame, I called your post lame and said it was B.S. I stand by that..........

You are again painting things with a broad brush with the bolded as the example above. Now you're trying to say that white folks have a better experience with the police than minorities which just simply isn't necessarily true in that broad of a sense. I am in no way shape or form trying to diminish what some folks are saying in reference to how they're treated by some officers across the country, I'm certain that some of that stuff goes on, but I'm also certain some folks will use any excuse to justify their behavior and slant their interactions with the police so any observer will side with them and sympathize with their poor decision making. 

I will argue with ANYONE about the topic if they try to paint this picture "Police are racist."  Watching that video, what you're saying is your opinion and in no way should be taken as fact. You simply don't have any idea what would happen if a minority would've been the suspect in this case. You are making an assumption and, most likely, and incorrect assumption at that. 

You say you found the video interesting, your post certainly didn't even allow a rational discussion to occur on the matter. It was simply a "fire for effect" type of post IMO which is certainly going to get a response from me as I've shown in the past. Yes, your past posting history on the matter is certainly in my mind when you continue to show the same distaste for police over and over again from what I've observed. So it is you that doesn't seem to want to have an open discussion in the matter and even attempt to see my point of view. I certainly take offense to being painted with a broad brush and will continue to do so until folks stop doing that. 

I've acknowledged in the past that law enforcement can always get better and we should constantly be looking for better ways of doing things. However, I've also said that society as a whole needs to understand what it's doing wrong, be willing to have a little self-reflection, and change their behavior for things to get better. This is NOT a one-way street where only one side is at fault for all the wrongs. Law enforcement unfairly gets the blame most of the time and society is losing good cops on a daily basis because of that. 

The "Lame" emoji implied that. Fair enough, stand by it. That's your opinion. 

I guess I don't know what you mean exactly when you say I'm painting things with a broad brush because I don't recall stating that "All police are XYZ." I am talking about how different people of different races have different experiences with the police. I also gave some examples to speak to that like Betty Shelby and Dylann Roof but you simply refer to it as BS. Stephon Clark gets riddled with bullets for holding a cell phone but Dylann Roof is given a bullet proof vest. That's challenging for me to understand and accept.  

Yes, I found the video interesting, the content is rather shocking. I don't see how it doesn't allow for a discussion as we seem to be having one now. I'm open to the subject and a discussion beyond being told everything I post is BS. If you think that so poorly of me and my posts then why engage? 

 

[Enhance]

Yes, I found the video interesting, the content is rather shocking. I don't see how it doesn't allow for a discussion as we seem to be having one now. I'm open to the subject and a discussion beyond being told everything I post is BS. If you think that so poorly of me and my posts then why engage? 

The discussion about law enforcement and how they interact with the citizenry is a worthy topic, particularly as it relates racial profiling. I believe BRI would agree with that, as well.

But, let me ask why this video serves as sufficient enough evidence to buoy that conversation? What is it proving? What are the details of that arrest? What do we know about those police officers - are they racist, are they not? Have they been accused of racial profiling in previous arrests?

Perhaps there are answers to those questions to explain the video, but presenting that video in that fashion seems wildly disingenuous, no?

 

[Fru]

The discussion about law enforcement and how they interact with the citizenry is a worthy discussion, particularly as it relates racial profiling. I believe BRI would agree with that, as well.

But, let me ask why this video serves as sufficient enough evidence to buoy that conversation? What is it proving? What are the details of that arrest? What do we know about those police officers - are they racist, are they not? Have they been accused of racial profiling in previous arrests?

Perhaps there are answers to those questions to explain the video, but presenting that video in that fashion seems wildly disingenuous, no?

Please tell me where I said that this video proves anything implicitly. I said it was interesting. 

I believe it is interesting because it shows a white male physically assaulting an officer in an extremely violent manner. That white male is not shot. If it proves anything, it proves you can physically attack an officer and not be killed. It proves that you can disobey police orders and not be killed. It proves that you can be behaving belligerently and not be killed. It proves that police can handle a situation without killing someone, even if they're being physically threatened in a violent manner. I wish that kind of courtesy had been shown to Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Stephon Clark and plenty of others. 

I specifically compared the video to Betty Shelby, who shot and killed Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man who had his hands in the air. Charles Kinsey pictured below was laying on his back with his hands in the air, and he still gets perceived as a big enough threat to be shot.

But when a white guy tackles a cop to the ground, he's not perceived as enough of a threat to be shot. I find that challenging to understand and accept. 

 

[NUance]

Without reading again, I believe the same thing happened at the first Starbucks.

Ok I looked it up - this is from the original incident:
 

This backs up the idea that the police were called because they were black, not because they were doing anything they don't let other customers do.

To the bolded - it seems like you're making an assumption that they didn't say anything to that effect.

I find it interesting that you've invented some assumption I purportedly made.  I'm just going by the article I read in the Washington Post: (WP: "And I just left it at that,” Nelson, 23, said.")  The WP article also didn't mention any other woman who was given the bathroom code without paying:  

The men said they arrived at the Center City Starbucks at 4:35 p.m. for a 4:45 business meeting. Immediately upon walking in, Nelson asked the manager if he could use the restroom. The manager said the restrooms were for paying customers only.  “And I just left it at that,” Nelson, 23, said. 

Robinson said that after Nelson got back to the table, the manager came over to their table to ask if she could help with any drinks or water. Robinson said they had water bottles with them and were waiting for a meeting.  LINK

 

[Mierin]

I find it interesting that you've invented some assumption I purportedly made.  I'm just going by the article I read in the Washington Post: (WP: "And I just left it at that,” Nelson, 23, said.")  The WP article also didn't mention any other woman who was given the bathroom code without paying: 

Fair enough on the first 2 sentences. Admittedly I was slightly annoyed by "the whole thing could have been avoided if the 2 arrested guys had just" done _blank_ part, because that kind of statement gets used a lot when these things happen. That's where that part of my reply came from. I read the link you posted and the whole thing could have been avoided if the employee had informed them of the policy, or applied the policy the same way to all non-paying customers.

To the rest, Washington Post isn't the only place reporting on this. I had seen in another article (other than the one I quoted) or maybe a post on here that one of the men who got arrested in Philadelphia had asked to use the restroom and had been denied after witnesses had seen another non-paying customer allowed. I had read about it a couple days before this new incident. Here is the same quote again with a link:
 

Lauren said another woman had entered the Starbucks minutes before the men were arrested and was given the bathroom code without having to buy anything and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything."

http://abc13.com/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/

 

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

I find that challenging to understand and accept. 

It’s different people. Just because the officers in your examples used lethal force where it was unnecessary doesn’t mean if the guy in the video was black the same cop would’ve treated him any differently. We should condemn the cops that are racially biased and use unwarranted force but from that video I think it’s exceptionally hard to find evidence of either of those things unless they just weren’t recorded, in which case you should provide further context if there is such. Presenting a cop being assualted by a white guy and insinuating ‘...well what if the guy was black or that the reason the cop doesn’t use lethal force is because the aggressor is white’ is a huge disservice to both the police and people affected by police brutality IMO.

 

[RedDenver]

It’s different people. Just because the officers in your examples used lethal force where it was unnecessary doesn’t mean if the guy in the video was black the same cop would’ve treated him any differently. We should condemn the cops that are racially biased and use unwarranted force but from that video I think it’s exceptionally hard to find evidence of either of those things unless they just weren’t recorded, in which case you should provide further context if there is such. Presenting a cop being assualted by a white guy and insinuating ‘...well what if the guy was black or that the reason the cop doesn’t use lethal force is because the aggressor is white’ is a huge disservice to both the police and people affected by police brutality IMO.

I'm looking at it the other way, not as an implication that the cops in the video would have acted racist if the guy had been black, but rather that they showed it's possible to NOT shoot people even if they are disobeying police orders or threatening or acting violently. @Fru sums it up pretty well:

Please tell me where I said that this video proves anything implicitly. I said it was interesting. 

I believe it is interesting because it shows a white male physically assaulting an officer in an extremely violent manner. That white male is not shot. If it proves anything, it proves you can physically attack an officer and not be killed. It proves that you can disobey police orders and not be killed. It proves that you can be behaving belligerently and not be killed. It proves that police can handle a situation without killing someone, even if they're being physically threatened in a violent manner. I wish that kind of courtesy had been shown to Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Stephon Clark and plenty of others. 

I specifically compared the video to Betty Shelby, who shot and killed Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man who had his hands in the air. Charles Kinsey pictured below was laying on his back with his hands in the air, and he still gets perceived as a big enough threat to be shot.

But when a white guy tackles a cop to the ground, he's not perceived as enough of a threat to be shot. I find that challenging to understand and accept. 

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

I'm looking at it the other way, not as an implication that the cops in the video would have acted racist if the guy had been black, but rather that they showed it's possible to NOT shoot people even if they are disobeying police orders or threatening or acting violently.

Then why does he stress that the aggressor is white and why put it in a thread about racism if the intent of the post has nothing to with racism but instead excessive force by police? Were it framed in such a thread I don’t feel like we’d be having this argument. 

 

[Fru]

Then why does he stress that the aggressor is white and why put it in a thread about racism if the intent of the post has nothing to with racism but instead excessive force by police? Were it framed in such a thread I don’t feel like we’d be having this argument. 

Because people of color don't seem to get the leeway that others do. A white guy swings at a cop and tackles him in the video, doesn't get shot. Walter Scott swings at a cop, runs away and gets bullets in his back.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

Tamir Rice, a 12 year old black child playing with a toy gun gets shot and killed by police.

http://www.wlky.com/article/louisville-man-arrested-after-firing-gun-at-officers/19649061

Oscar Walters, a 68 year old white man shoots an air rifle at the police after a domestic violence call, and they apprehend him without shooting him. 

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

Because people of color don't seem to get the leeway that others do. A white guy swings at a cop and tackles him in the video, doesn't get shot. Walter Scott swings at a cop, runs away and gets bullets in his back.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

Tamir Rice, a 12 year old black child playing with a toy gun gets shot and killed by police.

http://www.wlky.com/article/louisville-man-arrested-after-firing-gun-at-officers/19649061

Oscar Walters, a 68 year old white man shoots an air rifle at the police after a domestic violence call, and they apprehend him without shooting him. 

I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing that it’s wrong to use such a broad stroke when calling this a double standard. It’s completely different people wearing the badge. Were it the same cop in the situation the only difference being the race of the suspect, then I’d 100% agree with you.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I appreciate the back and forth on this video. Nobody is making it personal or taking cheap shots about a very heated topic... it's refreshing to see.

Anyway, going to take it in a slightly different direction here, but this is important. This is what electing a Trump, who spends so much of his time implicitly and explicitly demonizing minorities and people who look differently, will get you.


Some really ugly, graphic accounts contained in this story. The racists are crawling out of their holes and out from under their rocks because they feel empowered to express their real feelings to the "other" in America. It's depressing, but it's something we all need to shove back on. Hard.

“Trump is giving these people so much power, so that they feel as though they’re also running the country,” Johnson said. “These horrible, ugly people now have a voice. And I’m so tired of hearing it because I’ve heard it my entire life. But it was whispers before. Now they’re yelling.”

Reveal culled the reports of Trump-themed attacks from Documenting Hate, a media collaborative led by ProPublica that tracks hate incidents across the country. Overall, Documenting Hate has received more than 300 reports of people using Trump’s name in hate speech since the effort launched in January 2017. That’s out of about 4,700 total tips.

Reveal spoke with more than 80 people who reported the Trump-themed cases, and located another 70 that had been reported by other media organizations or confirmed with documentation.

Most of the victims of abuse by Trump supporters said they’re scared. But their fear isn’t just that they will be attacked again by people emboldened by Trump. They worry that America has taken a step backward after generations of civil rights gains.

---------------

The number of hate crimes committed in 2016 reached a five-year high, fueled by a spike around the November election, according to official FBI hate crime statistics. The Anti-Defamation League reports that anti-Semitic activity such as harassment and vandalism of synagogues rose 57 percent from 2016 to 2017. The Council on American-Islamic Relations tallied a 24 percent rise in anti-Muslim bias incidents in the first half of 2017 compared with the first half of 2016.

“This dry kindling was already there,” said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “The president’s invocation of various negative stereotypes has both coalesced, solidified and, in some ways, normalized the stereotypes in a mainstream discourse.”

But sometimes, from the mouths of babes comes the truth. This is from a 10 year old living with his siblings, all black, in an almost exclusively white suburb of Denver:

Then came the 2016 presidential election.

Within a few months of Trump’s election, all three were targeted by explicit racist abuse at school. Thirteen-year-old Aaliyah was told by a white classmate that now that Trump was president, he could “shoot as many black people in the back as I want,” Tara Roesener said. Chris, 12, said his white classmates started ostentatiously using racial slurs in his presence, snickering at him when he told them to stop.

Khalil, now 10, said a white boy in his class started building a wall out of blocks during playtime. The boy purposefully placed the blocks between a group of white kids and a group of black and Latino kids.

“He said, ‘This is Trump’s wall,’ ” Khalil said.

Stevens and Roesener reported everything to the school district. A spokeswoman for the district said it has been receiving an increasing number of complaints about racial and political taunting.

Khalil said he thinks about the taunts he and his siblings have heard as he’s trying to fall asleep.

“At nighttime, I think about, like, what would happen if Trump did succeed in what he was planning to do, which he hopefully won’t,” he said.

Asked what he thinks Trump wants to do, Khalil was unequivocal. “I’m gonna say it like this: He’s trying to create a white world.”