Page 148 of 173

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:17 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Wait, does the business have to prove they were justified, or does the plaintiff have to prove the business was discriminatory?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:36 pm UTC
by Zohar
CorruptUser wrote:But the problem isn't that the police arrested two people for refusing to leave a place that technically they weren't legally allowed to be in, the problem is that Starbucks called the cops because two black people had the audacity to be in a Starbucks during business hours.

You are really into pinpointing a single problem and excluding all other issues as irrelevant. Why can't both the police and Starbucks be in the wrong here? Plenty of bullshit to go around.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:56 pm UTC
by elasto
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, does the business have to prove they were justified, or does the plaintiff have to prove the business was discriminatory?

IANAL but a quick googling suggests to me it would be dealt with in the civil courts not the criminal, so it would be on the basis of 'on the balance of probabilities'.

legalzoom wrote:If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

link

If this store has a history of calling the police every time anyone comes in and doesn't order because they say they are waiting for someone, then they may be safe, legally. If this store has a history of only calling the police on black people though, it doesn't look good for them.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:13 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So... idea for a SNL skit.

A Bostonian bartender refuses to serve anyone in a Yankees shirt, is caught on tape saying "all Yankees fans are f-ing idiots", and is sued for discrimination against the mentally disabled.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:07 pm UTC
by SDK
jewish_scientist wrote:
SDK wrote:But yeah, I agree that if the process truly takes nine hours, it needs to be changed.

They were released once Starbucks said that they did not want to press charges. If it takes Starbucks 9 hours to make that decision, then these mens' extended stay in jail is Starbuck's fault.

Screw that. Trespassing is not a very serious crime, especially the manner in which those two guys were trespassing (that is, very peacefully). Sure, arrest them, bring them back to the station and get it on the books, but just because someone is being charged with a crime does not mean they MUST stay in jail.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:49 pm UTC
by Chen
In doing some reading, does Starbucks even have a legal say in whether or not charges are laid? From what I gather they can tell the prosecutor "we don't really want to go forward with this" but its on the prosecutor themselves to determine if the people are charged. When the article says "the police let them go after Starbucks refused to press charges" does that actually mean "the police let them go after the prosecutor agreed with Starbucks and didn't press charges?"

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:37 pm UTC
by Dauric
Chen wrote:In doing some reading, does Starbucks even have a legal say in whether or not charges are laid? From what I gather they can tell the prosecutor "we don't really want to go forward with this" but its on the prosecutor themselves to determine if the people are charged. When the article says "the police let them go after Starbucks refused to press charges" does that actually mean "the police let them go after the prosecutor agreed with Starbucks and didn't press charges?"


Pressing Charges

The discretion to prosecute rests entirely with the prosecutor's office. If "Starbucks declines to press charges" it basically means they refuse to cooperate with the prosecutors office (by providing evidence or testimony). This refusal to cooperate means the case will be significantly harder to win, to the point of not being worth the prosecution office's time and resources.

The opposite can also be true where the 'harmed party' doesn't want to 'press charges', but the crime was so egregious that the prosecutor's office goes ahead without their willing participation.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:52 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
And of course it's possible for the police to just decline to prosecute even though the victim would really like them to, as happened when I was assaulted by some teenagers in a park once and the police response was "we'll talk to their coaches about it".

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:16 pm UTC
by Chen
Dauric wrote:Pressing Charges

The discretion to prosecute rests entirely with the prosecutor's office. If "Starbucks declines to press charges" it basically means they refuse to cooperate with the prosecutors office (by providing evidence or testimony). This refusal to cooperate means the case will be significantly harder to win, to the point of not being worth the prosecution office's time and resources.

The opposite can also be true where the 'harmed party' doesn't want to 'press charges', but the crime was so egregious that the prosecutor's office goes ahead without their willing participation.


So if this has to go through the prosecutor, I presume that's where additional delays come from. Probably doesn't help here that Starbucks individual managers probably don't have the authority to decide whether or not to press charges either. So if I understand the process correctly:

1. People arrested
2. People booked
3. People held until charges a brought
4. "Victim" contacts police and/or prosecutor and decides whether or not to press charges
5. Prosecutor tells police whether or not charges will be brought
6. People are brought before judge or released depending on which way it goes.

Is that about right?

Pfhorrest wrote:And of course it's possible for the police to just decline to prosecute even though the victim would really like them to, as happened when I was assaulted by some teenagers in a park once and the police response was "we'll talk to their coaches about it".


Well the police can decline to arrest if there isn't sufficient evidence that a crime took place. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute if they feel they can't make the case.

Corruption (say in terms of favoritism, racisms, nepotism etc) of course is another set of reasons they do or do not prosecute people of course.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:33 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Chen wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:And of course it's possible for the police to just decline to prosecute even though the victim would really like them to, as happened when I was assaulted by some teenagers in a park once and the police response was "we'll talk to their coaches about it".


Well the police can decline to arrest if there isn't sufficient evidence that a crime took place. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute if they feel they can't make the case.

Corruption (say in terms of favoritism, racisms, nepotism etc) of course is another set of reasons they do or do not prosecute people of course.

I wasn't badly injured (minor bruising, because I almost never bruise generally) so it could be the first kind of reason, but then the kids were neonazis (one called me a "white n*****", whatever that means, and a "race traitor"... for telling them they're not allowed to smoke in that park? what?) and one of them literally said "DO YOU KNOW WHO MY FATHER IS!?" (I just asked if I looked like I cared, so I never actually found out), so maybe the latter reason could have factored in too.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:53 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
"White nword" is usually moronspeak for "jew"

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:44 am UTC
by idonno
Pfhorrest wrote:
Chen wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:And of course it's possible for the police to just decline to prosecute even though the victim would really like them to, as happened when I was assaulted by some teenagers in a park once and the police response was "we'll talk to their coaches about it".


Well the police can decline to arrest if there isn't sufficient evidence that a crime took place. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute if they feel they can't make the case.

Corruption (say in terms of favoritism, racisms, nepotism etc) of course is another set of reasons they do or do not prosecute people of course.

I wasn't badly injured (minor bruising, because I almost never bruise generally) so it could be the first kind of reason, but then the kids were neonazis (one called me a "white n*****", whatever that means, and a "race traitor"... for telling them they're not allowed to smoke in that park? what?) and one of them literally said "DO YOU KNOW WHO MY FATHER IS!?" (I just asked if I looked like I cared, so I never actually found out), so maybe the latter reason could have factored in too.

Depending on where you were and what they were being coached in, it could also be that you tried to do something that would hurt the local high school team and perhaps these kids promising careers. From your description, that is hardly the wort offense that has been ignored for the sake of high school sports.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:04 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Except this happened to Pforrest, not to someone else somewhere else.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:32 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
I'm kinda lost in this conversation now.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:26 am UTC
by CorruptUser
What I mean is, it happened to you. You being the actual victim of a crime is going to affect your outlook far more than you hearing about some worse crime in a different state that happened to people you will never meet.

But what doesn't make sense is that the neonazis had coaches. As in sports team coaches? What is this, Boston?*

*The Red Sox was the very last MLB team to allow black people to play, which is why they didn't win a world series for nearly a century

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:55 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Oh I think I get you now. But I still get idunno's comment on the general principle -- maybe the kids got off easy because they're local sports stars. (I didn't think high school sports were that big of a deal to the adult community, but I guess every kid belongs to some adult, so it makes some sense).

And yeah, I figured they meant sportball coaches. Probably football. It doesn't surprise me at all -- sportball and bigotry both feed into toxic competitive machismo attitudes so if anything I'd expect them to correlate.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:19 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Well you know, the less something matters, the harder people fight over it.

But it doesn't make sense. Yes, people are shitheads, yes the teams will overlook quite a bit of bad behavior from the athletes, but neonazism? I mean it's probably racism on my part, but I don't expect the whites-only team to have too many state championship trophies...

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:37 am UTC
by addams
The CEO seems to responding well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUhQ_TGc0rg

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:43 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
Zohar, I appoligize. I misinterpreted what you where saying.

Thesh wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:
Thesh wrote:They don't have to arrest if the business isn't pressing charges.

How do you except the officers to know beforehand if Starbucks is going to decide to drop the charges or not?

In the end, the arrest of these men is Starbuck's fault. That is what usually happens when you report a crime to the police.


If you read my post, you would know the answer: The police ask them if they wish to press charges over it.

Starbucks didn't drop the charges, they declined to press charges in the first place.

Calling the police to report a crime committed against you is tantamount to pressing charges.

The whole idea of de-arresting seems very wrong to me. Theoretically, a person could be arrested 50 times for domestic abuse, but if he is de-arrested before processing then none of those incidents would go on their criminal record. You could also make a de facto stop-and-frisk policy by arresting, searching, and de-arresting anyone you want.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:12 pm UTC
by HES
jewish_scientist wrote:The whole idea of de-arresting seems very wrong to me. Theoretically, a person could be arrested 50 times for domestic abuse, but if he is de-arrested before processing then none of those incidents would go on their criminal record.

The flip side is people getting criminal records over nothing. A tool isn't always applicable, but should be available for when it is.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:28 pm UTC
by Quercus
jewish_scientist wrote:The whole idea of de-arresting seems very wrong to me. Theoretically, a person could be arrested 50 times for domestic abuse, but if he is de-arrested before processing then none of those incidents would go on their criminal record. You could also make a de facto stop-and-frisk policy by arresting, searching, and de-arresting anyone you want.


Arrests followed by a de-arrest in the UK are usually still recorded according to this article. Also from the article:

For an arrest to be lawful it must adhere to the conditions laid out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An arresting officer must hold an "honest and reasonable" suspicion that a criminal act has been carried out by the detainee, explains Kevin Donoghue, solicitor-director of Donoghue Solicitors. If at any point the facts of the original arrest change, he says, then an officer has to question whether he or she still maintains that honest suspicion. "And the key issue is that every detention of any individual must be justified on a minute-by-minute basis," Donoghue says.


Which seems eminently reasonable to me. If it emerges that there are no longer reasonable grounds for the arrest, then I would argue that holding the arrestee for any substantial amount of time beyond that constitutes arbitrary detention and thus a violation of the arrestee's human rights.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:35 pm UTC
by natraj
jewish_scientist wrote:Calling the police to report a crime committed against you is tantamount to pressing charges.


that is completely inaccurate anyway. you can absolutely call the police to report a crime and have zero intention of pursuing or complying with any legal action against the person who committed it. this happens frequently with e.g. sexual assault or theft (two things with very different reasons for wanting or needing to report but also may have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to see someone arrested.)

not everyone in the world has a hardon for retribution.

also, judging from my personal interactions with both cops and white people, and white people who have called the cops on black people, there are absolutely a category of white people who think of the cops as a weapon to be used against black people -- who will without question call the cops on black people who pose no threat at all, knowingly and intentionally because they want to see those black people harmed, killed, or jailed and know the threat of police is effectively a compliance tool to frighten uppity negroes into behaving.

BUT there is a different and i think far more widespread category of white people who, because they are insulated by their own privilege and ability to NOT think of the cops as murder weapons, see "calling the cops" as something you just... do? if you are annoyed and want Something Generically Intimidating to back you up? i don't think this group of people is intentionally thinking "maybe i will ruin or end a black person's life today" because i don't think they've given enough thought to what happens when you call the cops.

specifically in a retail/store environment, i have often seen cops called when nobody had any intention of wanting someone arrested, they just wanted someone gone/stopping X behavior. they call the cops, expecting that the cops will shoo away a patron for them. i have seen this end with the person being escorted out (physically or otherwise) without any arrest happening, even in the case of patrons who were actually causing trouble.

anyway personally i agree with zohar there's no reason to have to pick one. the starbucks manager and the cops were both wrong here and it's tiring but unsurprising to me that so many people defend what happened as "well that's just how it had to be."

the world we live in, the world y'all are actively defending with that rationale, is a world where for the crime of existing while black, it is acceptable and justified that i get thrown out of public businesses and then arrested when trying to explain my calm, quiet, peaceful black existence.

this is why we have a world where next week there will be some story of an unarmed black person gunned down by the cops for something completely trivial like breathing in his own backyard and everyone will still all over themselves to say, well, that's how it should be, if you don't immediately comply with the cops no matter how unjustified their instructions you get shot to death!

the small things create the atmosphere for the big things, and y'all all real ready to just accept that living in constant terror of living our ordinary lives is Fine And Normal.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:58 pm UTC
by Dauric
natraj wrote:BUT there is a different and i think far more widespread category of white people who, because they are insulated by their own privilege and ability to NOT think of the cops as murder weapons, see "calling the cops" as something you just... do? if you are annoyed and want Something Generically Intimidating to back you up? i don't think this group of people is intentionally thinking "maybe i will ruin or end a black person's life today" because i don't think they've given enough thought to what happens when you call the cops.

specifically in a retail/store environment, i have often seen cops called when nobody had any intention of wanting someone arrested, they just wanted someone gone/stopping X behavior. they call the cops, expecting that the cops will shoo away a patron for them. i have seen this end with the person being escorted out (physically or otherwise) without any arrest happening, even in the case of patrons who were actually causing trouble.


Litigious Society.

Unfortunately it's often the case that the best way to remove someone from the premises, without running afoul of the law oneself, is to call professionals. Most corporate offices have some sort of private security to deal with access to the property and removing disruptive or dangerous individuals. Retail outlets, especially small strip-mall storefronts often do not have that option and the only 'professionals' they can call to deal with someone perceived as disruptive are police.

If the store-owner asks the person in question to leave and that person refuses to acknowledge the property owner/owner's representative's authority over the situation and refuses to leave that ends the owner's ability to 'shoo' them off the property. A typical retail manager can't lay hands on the person without risking their company being sued, and in turn losing their job. If you don't have full-time security on-premises with .. shall we say "Uniformed Authority/Intimidation" backed up with the ability, and legal defense council, to do the manhandling, the police are your only other option.

Unfortunately this also leads to some people who preemptively call the police simply because they don't know how far they can or can't go, and don't want to get themselves in to a position where they can be harmed in court by being involved directly in the situation (or indeed being directed by company policy to not get directly involved). It's preferable to call the police and let them sort the issue out as they have (in theory) the training to know what they can and can't do, and the authority and legal backing to handle the situation that a store manager doesn't.

Note: I'm not saying anything about what it takes to be perceived as "disruptive" by store managers or officers, clearly there's a racial bias issue there.

I don't know that there is a good solution other than mandatory contracts to security companies that have the authority (and in theory proper training <insert laughter here>) to intervene on behalf of property owners, physically if necessary, and have the legal backing to do their jobs without (undue) fear of courtroom reprisal. This solution makes me twitchy though because it strikes me as closer to the idea of "justice for those who can afford it" than we already are.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:14 pm UTC
by Chen
Does private security really make a difference? What legally gives them the authority to physically remove someone from a location? I mean it gets around the training part since they are almost certainly more physically trained than regular store staff in this regard, but does it actually help in case of litigation? If someone is trespassing they can detain them but then they have to immediately call the cops anyways (like any citizen's arrest).

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:17 pm UTC
by Zohar
I'm not sure what's the point of your post. You say sometimes business managers don't have a choice but to call the authorities - but calling the authorities was a mistake based on mismanagement and racism here (as admitted to by Starbucks themselves).

Perhaps instead of bringing in more people with too much power and too little training, we could enforce mandatory training to managers on how to deal with these situations, enact laws that state you have to respond to a police inquiry within one hour so people aren't detained for so long (not wanting to press charges "at this time" doesn't stop you from doing so later if you wish, as I understand it), and some more laws specifying what business owners are allowed or not allowed to do in a space generally open for all with unwanted visitors.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:32 pm UTC
by Dauric
Zohar wrote:I'm not sure what's the point of your post. You say sometimes business managers don't have a choice but to call the authorities

There was a reason I quoted the specific passage from Natraj's post, It was the
...see "calling the cops" as something you just... do?


I was responding to. It's not that calling the police as a policy is something that happens completely out of the blue just because, there's underlying reasons for it, and i'm generally of the opinion that a good understanding of the mechanisms behind a problem is necessary before you can develop an effective solution to it.

Edit: To be somewhat more clear, I think calling the police to do a task bar bouncers do is a problem. Bouncers typically don't carry weapons and don't have the authority to make arrests, and still manage to deal with removing rowdy and uncooperative patrons. Calling police for this task is overkill that (IMO) invites problems of abuse.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:50 pm UTC
by Zohar
Which is why natraj provided a lengthy post explaining why people do these things, and the blind spots people with privilege have with regards to the consequences a POC can suffer from an encounter with the police. Anyway, this meta-discussion isn't super relevant.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:31 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
BBC wrote:But a de-arrest is not necessarily an admission of a mistake on behalf of the officer, says Acpo. And a de-arrest doesn't overturn the fact of the arrest, Donoghue says. "As a general rule of thumb, if somebody is nicked and within five seconds is let go on the scene, there's unlikely to be any formal record created. But if 10 minutes later the police catch the right person, the initial erroneous arrest may well be included in the police report, he says. Once it's in the system then it may come up in an enhanced DBS (formerly CRB) check, used to determine whether individuals should be barred from certain types of work, Donoghue explains."

Its good to know that my domestic abuse hypothetical cannot happen. However, the part that I underlined still has me worried.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:48 pm UTC
by bantler
I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:53 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
But coincidently black people tend to be denied service far more frequently...

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:47 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
bantler wrote:
I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.

Sure, sometimes it's classist or ableist, too.

But if a white person has to be high or homeless to get the same treatment as black businessmen who've been there for two minutes and who are fully planning to order when their friend arrives, then that is racist.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:51 pm UTC
by CorruptUser

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:11 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Update to that story of the former soldier cop who was fired for not shooting a black man. The city settled for $175k to dismiss the case.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:32 pm UTC
by cphite
bantler wrote:I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.


Sure, but the issue is that far too often, white people are denied access and asked to leave if they're drunk, high, or homeless; whereas black people are denied access and asked to leave simply because they're there.

There are legitimate reasons for a business to restrict the use of it's restroom facilities to paying customers. The business is paying to keep their facilities clean and stocked and maintained; and if they are open to the public those costs can increase significantly, especially in high traffic areas. But if you're going to have that rule then it needs to be applied fairly to everybody.

Likewise, there are legitimate reasons not to allow non-customers to hang out in your business. If they're taking up a table, for example, at the expense of a paying customer, then they're costing you money. But again, if you're going to have that rule then it has to apply to everybody.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:34 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
What if it's because they are Male, and you dont want your bar to be a sausage party?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:53 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
bantler wrote:I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.

Part of the problem with determining discrimination is that a single incident is (usually) not enough to say an institution is guilt. For example, a study that has been repeated several times found that murderers of white people were significantly more likely to get the death penalty than murderers of black people. If you look at any one case, then you would not see the bias; it is only apparent when the larger view is taken.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:16 pm UTC
by bantler
gmalivuk wrote:
bantler wrote:
I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.

Sure, sometimes it's classist or ableist, too.

But if a white person has to be high or homeless to get the same treatment as black businessmen who've been there for two minutes and who are fully planning to order when their friend arrives, then that is racist.


More likely classist.
I posit that if these black business-men were dressed for business instead of beards and sweatpants there wouldn't have been an incident.
They are certainly free to present themselves as low-class thugs, but then they shouldn't expect to be treated positively when they refuse to patronize the establishment they are camping at.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:21 pm UTC
by Mutex
White people don't tend to get arrested for having beards and sweatpants.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:27 pm UTC
by Quercus
bantler wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
bantler wrote:
I see white drug-addicts and homeless people denied rest-room keys and asked to leave establishments all the time.
If they don't leave the police escort them out. Denying service isn't inherently racist.

Sure, sometimes it's classist or ableist, too.

But if a white person has to be high or homeless to get the same treatment as black businessmen who've been there for two minutes and who are fully planning to order when their friend arrives, then that is racist.


More likely classist.
I posit that if these black business-men were dressed for business instead of beards and sweatpants there wouldn't have been an incident.
They are certainly free to present themselves as low-class thugs, but then they shouldn't expect to be treated positively when they refuse to patronize the establishment they are camping at.


And there's nothing about the fact that a white person with a beard and sweatpants would likely have no trouble being read as a professional (possibly one who's just come from the gym) whereas a similar black person gets read as a "low class thug" that strikes you as having origins in racism?

It's almost as if racism and classism intersect and should be considered together when assessing a situation...

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:29 pm UTC
by bantler
Mutex wrote:White people don't tend to get arrested for having beards and sweatpants.


Beards and sweatpants are often denied service.
That look is all the rage amongst the homeless drug-addict crowd.