Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#5227 Jun 13 2018 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,667 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think Tirrith has taken it off the table but since everyone else has, (except gbaji who isn't a credible option here,) he's pointing out that it could be something else. Which none of you are showing as something you've honestly considered.


It has been considered. It just seems unlikely. (Read: It's just obvious)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5228 Jun 13 2018 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,440 posts
Whatever Stupidmoney
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5229 Jun 13 2018 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,667 posts
StupidMONKEY, thank you very much.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5230 Jun 13 2018 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I figure you're all racist. Racists.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5231 Jun 13 2018 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,582 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I figure you're all racist. Racists.

I'm not too keen on white people right now, to be honest.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5232 Jun 13 2018 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll ask you, gbaji to do this simple mental test: START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise.

That's a pretty terrible idea.

Edited, Jun 13th 2018 7:36pm by Allegory
#5233 Jun 13 2018 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,667 posts
Allegory wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll ask you, gbaji to do this simple mental test: START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise.

That's a pretty terrible idea.

Edited, Jun 13th 2018 7:36pm by Allegory


Engaging with gbaji? Yeah, I agree, terrible idea! Smiley: grin
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5234 Jun 13 2018 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
No making assumptions, especially that someone holds certain biases and demanded a random stranger on the internet prove otherwise. You demonstrate claims with evidence you have available.
#5235 Jun 13 2018 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,667 posts
I meant that he shouldn't have engaged with gbaji on the subject, and there are two reasons why...

1: I wouldn't have to inevitably scroll past three pages of text...On that topic, at least.

And

2: He wouldn't be tempted to post something illogical, and difficult, if not impossible.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5236 Jun 14 2018 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,385 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Which none of you are showing as something you've honestly considered.
Being stupid isn't really an excuse.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5237 Jun 14 2018 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,440 posts
No, but given the world we live in, it may actually be the most likely reason. Or tleast 50/50 with being a racist. This was an incident in the US of WTF afterall.

Edited, Jun 14th 2018 11:36am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5238 Jun 14 2018 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,385 posts
I'd like to think this wouldn't be the world we live in if we just held people accountable for their stupidity.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5239 Jun 14 2018 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,667 posts
Like if monumental stupidity was a capital offense!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5240 Jun 14 2018 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,177 posts
Gbaji wrote:
She's not giving her side of the story because she's literally terrified that she'll be harassed, threatened, possibly harmed, and likely have to move states, change her name, etc just to avoid being hounded for the rest of her life.

Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh Ok, now I'm certain you're trolling, which is ok since this is a past time of mine.

Allowing people to make up the truth as opposed to you giving the truth is always worse. If people already think you are a racist bigot, saying that the men "threatened me with physical violence if I asked them to make another purchase" (for example) provides justification for her actions.

Gbaji wrote:
And why do you suppose she didn't provide it?
Fox News would have had her on nonstop providing her side of the story

Gbaji wrote:
That's an interesting claim coming from someone effectively defending a "story" with just one side.
You would have a point on day zero, but if you choose not to defend yourself weeks after the fact, it becomes more difficult to support your actions.
#5241 Jun 14 2018 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the hysteria itself has shut down any countering facts to that assumptive narrative.
You're the guy who proudly boasted that his narrative is based on speculation and still haven't provided any actual facts ...


No. That's your strawman interpretation of what I said.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
One "side" is making a wild assumption. And it's not me.
You're also the guy who thinks cops aren't allowed to assess situations and have to mindlessly arrest whoever is being accused and you believe you're not the one making wild assumptions?


No. I'm the guy who had to clarify what he was talking about due to someone (ie: you) interpreting my statement in yet another utterly bizarre strawman manner. I never said cops are not allowed to assess "situations" period. That's insane. What they can't do is refuse to uphold the law when there's a clear crime being committed and the victim of the crime is standing in front of them, pointing to the perpetrator of the crime, while that perpetrator is actively committing the crime.

Which is precisely the case when the lawful representative of a property calls them to the property to remove someone who is trespassing. The cops don't get to decide if the reason said lawful representative wants the person removed is "good" or not. They don't get to make that call. They can only "assess" two things:

1. Is the person making the request lawfully empowered to make such decisions? Check.

2. Is the person or persons being asked to leave still on the premisses? Check.

That's all the assessment they get to do here. Those two check marks mean a crime in in progress. Why the lawful representative wants the removed is irrelevant. That's up to the courts to decide. It's not up to the police officers on the scene. I get that you want to somehow find fault in what the cops did here, but there really isn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5242 Jun 14 2018 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,177 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No, but given the world we live in, it may actually be the most likely reason. Or tleast 50/50 with being a racist. This was an incident in the US of WTF afterall.

Edited, Jun 14th 2018 11:36am by Uglysasquatch
I mentioned this. That's the difference between traditional racism and institutional favoritism. The intent might have nothing to do with race, but the outcome is the same. It's like targeting people over 6ft tall. That's inclusive to everyone, but black and white males would be disproportionately affected.
#5243 Jun 14 2018 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think Tirrith has taken it off the table but since everyone else has, (except gbaji who isn't a credible option here,) he's pointing out that it could be something else. Which none of you are showing as something you've honestly considered.


Um... I presented this as a possibility way back in April 20th:

gbaji wrote:
Again, I'm basing this more on common sense and my own long experience both working in retail establishments, and being a customer of them. In about 8 years of working at an open to the public retail outlet, I've never once seen the cops called on a customer unless the customer was being rude, violent, or offensive to the staff and/or other customers. And it never occurs in anything remotely like 2 minutes time. The last thing the employees want is to have to call the cops on someone. I suppose it's possible that she as just having a really bad day and they happened to trigger her somehow, but to suggest that their own actions had nothing at all to do with the outcome is laughable. Even after the cops showed up, they were given the opportunity to simply walk out of the store. They refused. So yeah, there was more to it than what they are claiming.


In the same post:

gbaji wrote:
Assuming that someone must have done something wrong if they got arrested is bad logic. But so is assuming they must have done nothing wrong.


Obviously, it's possible for her to have been in the wrong for calling the cops, without it having to be racist. I thought that was a given, so didn't feel like expanding on it. The absurdity of the assumption that "it's racist if you do anything bad to a person of color" is a theme I've mentioned several times in this discussion in fact. So yeah, for the record: Even if her reasons for calling the cops weren't sufficient, that still does not mean that she was motivated by race.

More references to the same idea:

gbaji wrote:
It's also not unreasonable to accept a scenario in which the two men did more than just "sit in a Starbucks while black". Your own statement basically supports this. If this manager routinely did this sort of thing, you'd think there would have been complaints, and she likely would not have been a manager for long. So either she'd been a manager for a very short period of time (we don't know how long she had her position), or this was not a "normal" action for her. And if it's not her normal behavior, we can either speculate that something else was going on (had a bad day, whatever) which caused her to massively overreact to these two men or that they did something more than they're admitting to which caused her to call the police.

Either case suggests this is not about racism though. Which was more or less my point.


See how I'm not just insisting it "must be this one thing", but actually presenting multiple possible explanations and showing how, because these multiple possible explanations exist, we can't just assume "it must be racism!".

I could probably quote a half dozen more posts by myself where I quite clearly present the possibility that there could be cases where she's still "in the wrong" for calling the cops but not "racist" for doing so. But I hope this is at least sufficient for you to drop the idea that no one in this thread even considered the possibility. I did. Very early in the thread. Of course it was ignored in favor of the much easier to argue against "OMG! He's just blaming the victims!!!" response that I got.

There's a reason why the straw man is a fallacy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5244 Jun 14 2018 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
Heck. Here's an even better one:

gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, why is it hard to accept that the barista might have improperly called the cops as well?

It's not. It's entirely possible that she overreacted to the situation at hand. In fact, I've posted this as a possible explanation for the events in question already in this thread. The point isn't whether it was proper for her to have called the cops, but with the assumption that it was not only improper, but that the motivation on her part was driven by racial bias.



Edited, Jun 14th 2018 5:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5245 Jun 14 2018 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No, but given the world we live in, it may actually be the most likely reason. Or tleast 50/50 with being a racist. This was an incident in the US of WTF afterall.
I mentioned this. That's the difference between traditional racism and institutional favoritism. The intent might have nothing to do with race, but the outcome is the same. It's like targeting people over 6ft tall. That's inclusive to everyone, but black and white males would be disproportionately affected.


That's disparate outcome, where the rule itself isn't directly racially biased, but due to other factors, the outcome of the rule (or law) creates a statistically different outcome that is aligned with race.

That's certainly something we should look at as a society, but simply declaring the disparate outcome to "be" racism isn't helpful at all. It shifts the focus on intent, when that's not necessarily the cause. And this can result in us looking in the wrong direction and actually make it harder to actually fix the underlying issue that causes the disparate outcome in the first place.

Here's one example of this. Different sentences applied to cocaine possession (sufficient quantity for sale) based on whether it's in powder or crack form. The initial reason was because of the much higher rate of addiction from crack versus powder, and the fast spread of this addiction, specifically in poor neighborhoods. This resulted in the percentage of those subject to the stiffer sentences being disproportionately black versus white, and in turn resulted in claims that the stiffer sentences themselves were racist (or at least racially biased).

The underlying "cause" of this, however, was not bias in the law, nor the reason for the law (it was designed with the hope of slowing down the spread of this form of cocaine among those poor communities). The cause of the disparate outcome was that blacks are significantly more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, and thus more likely to be "victims" of the crack epidemic, and thus more likely to be arrested. That's the real underlying problem here (and this, btw, applies to a whole lot of the disparate outcome issues we run into). That's the social statistic that we need to try to fix. But insisting that we adjust our laws and sentencing based not on the crime being committed, but the impact of enforcing the crime based on relative racial populations is probably a really really bad idea.

We can spackle over the issue by jumping on every disparate outcome effect and trying to make adjustments, after the fact, to our laws to "fix it", but that's never going to solve the real problem. As long as blacks are significantly more likely to be poor than whites, every single social, economic, and crime statistic will follow that stat. We can't just adjust sentences, laws, welfare, and whatever else to try to hide it. That's never going to really fix things, and is really just a form of lying to ourselves. I'd also argue that it'll make it harder over time to fix the real problem, but that's just my own kookie thinking at work, I suppose.

And yeah. Crying "racism" every time something "bad" happens to a black person isn't terribly helpful either. Bad things happen to people in poverty more often than people in the middle class. Period. You want to change the statical racial outcomes, change the base statistical racial conditions. That's a harder thing to do than just blaming racism for it all though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5246 Jun 15 2018 at 2:01 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,440 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... I presented this as a possibility way back in April 20th:
You did see your name mentioned as the exception in what you quoted right...?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5247 Jun 15 2018 at 5:08 AM Rating: Excellent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,177 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's certainly something we should look at as a society, but simply declaring the disparate outcome to "be" racism isn't helpful at all.
Overusing the term "racism" is not helpful at all; however, you must not forget that this nation was literally built on racism. As a result, common practices, beliefs, etc. stem from those origins.

Gbaji wrote:
Here's one example of this.
Which is a good example. The difference of "throw everyone in jail" vs "they are not criminals, but victims" when the users are of different demographics is the entire problem of institutionalize favoritism (notice I didn't say racism). The reality is, people with power and influence will focus on solving problems for friends, family and loved ones.

Gbaji wrote:
As long as blacks are significantly more likely to be poor than whites, every single social, economic, and crime statistic will follow that stat.
Just because a black person has wealth does not mean they are free from racism or favoritism. For example, white flight.

The root of the problem is people like you who want to deny socially created racial inequality. Yes, people on the other side are also part of the problem, labeling everything as a result of racism, but you are the other "half" of the problem, denying the existence of it. You say that you believe it exists, but when several scenarios are presented, you continuously find ways to justify the actions.

#5248 Jun 15 2018 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,385 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You're the guy who proudly boasted that his narrative is based on speculation and still haven't provided any actual facts ...
That's your strawman interpretation of what I said.
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, we can't explain, because only she can do that, and she's not talking. [...] As to "speculate", I've done plenty of that.
Keep on keepin' on Scarecrow. Nice of you to shine a spotlight on your still not having any facts, though.
gbaji wrote:
I never said cops are not allowed to assess "situations" period.
gbaji wrote:
Their job is not to assess why they were asked to leave.
But it is their job to assess why they were asked to remove people from the shop.
gbaji wrote:
1. Is the person making the request lawfully empowered to make such decisions? Check.

2. Is the person or persons being asked to leave still on the premisses? Check.
2 is actually the lawfully empowered person having to prove that a crime has been committed. In this case she'd have to prove that the two people that walked into the store broke known rules; To do that she'd have to show the rules were on display, either on the front door or somewhere else easily visable. Was there a sign telling everyone that they must order something in less than five minutes or they must leave? Or she'd have to prove they were causing a disturbance, which would require eye witness collaboration. Speaking of witnesses, several have said that a woman had entered before these two men and got the bathroom code without ordering anything, and another admitted to have been sitting around for a couple of hours without buying anything.

Without the real 2, 3 is that the cops can, at best, ask someone to leave but unless they can prove 2 was actually a crime it would have been illegal detention to arrest them if they refuse. Which is the real reason the arrest didn't stick: Just pointing at someone and screaming guilty isn't actually a crime.
gbaji wrote:
I get that you want to somehow find fault in what the cops did here,
I found fault where there was fault. The manager was wrong to call the cops less than five minutes after the two black guys walked into her shop, and the cops were wrong for arresting them. These are established facts. You can speculate all you want.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You did see your name mentioned as the exception in what you quoted right...?
But then he couldn't tell us all how amazing he is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5249 Jun 15 2018 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... I presented this as a possibility way back in April 20th:
You did see your name mentioned as the exception in what you quoted right...?


Excepting me because I'm "not a credible option" suggested that my posts should just be ignored when talking about such points, and not "gee. He made exactly the right point, and we should pay attention to it cause it just might be super valid!". But I'll defer to whichever interpretation you intended.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5250 Jun 15 2018 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Overusing the term "racism" is not helpful at all; however, you must not forget that this nation was literally built on racism.


Do you understand that the second clause in that sentence is an example of exactly what you said is not helpful in the first clause? Our nation was not "literally built on racism". It was built on a set of principles that absolutely refuted the very concept of racism (all men are created equal?), but in which slavery existed as a matter of fact. That conflict was known at the time, and every day after that, and arguably lead directly to the eventual elimination of that slavery (via a pretty violent civil war). If our nation had actually been built on racism, we'd still have slavery and everyone would think it was great (well, except the slaves).

That's simply not true.

Quote:
As a result, common practices, beliefs, etc. stem from those origins.


Again. I completely disagree. The common practices, beliefs, etc, stem from the principles of liberty, equal justice, equal representation, etc. Slavery and racism are hold outs of ideas prior to this that still linger but are absolutely 100% at odds with the basic principles on which this nation was founded. Most people in our society, by default, abhor the idea of racism, bigotry, etc.

Quote:
Which is a good example. The difference of "throw everyone in jail" vs "they are not criminals, but victims" when the users are of different demographics is the entire problem of institutionalize favoritism (notice I didn't say racism). The reality is, people with power and influence will focus on solving problems for friends, family and loved ones.


Except if one were actually acting on that, and we assume that it's somehow "white people in charge of the laws, with black people being affected by them", wouldn't it have been far far more effective to do nothing at all? Why would these presumed "favortist" white folks in charge care to do anything in response to a growing drug addiction problem that was occurring mostly among the poor and thus already had a baked in disproportionate negative effect on black people?

Either choice (tougher sentences on crack dealers or no response) could be interpreted as "favoritism" (or intentional race based disparate outcome). But if we reject race as a motivation at all, and just look at the crime in question, and the impact of the crime in question, one can (I would think) see a reasonable purpose to take the action in question for reasons that have everything to do with trying to fight a serious crime problem. That this has the effect of "helping" potential black addicts disproportionately gets lost in the fact that it also disproportionately results in black dealers facing tougher sentences. Focusing on one side of the equation while ignoring the other really does fall into the category of "overusing the racism label".

Quote:
Just because a black person has wealth does not mean they are free from racism or favoritism. For example, white flight.


That's a whole separate issue. If we stick to ideas of crime and punishment though, we find that when we examine the stats and adjust the populations for relative poverty rates, blacks and whites have nearly identical rates of incarceration, shootings by police, police stops "for nothing", etc. So yes, every bit of data we have suggests that a black person will have the same statistical outcomes as a white person growing up in and living in the same neighborhood. The statistical outcome difference is that black people are more likely to grow up in and live in as adults, poor and high crime neighborhoods. Everything flows from that.

Quote:
The root of the problem is people like you who want to deny socially created racial inequality.


It's not so much denying it, as questioning what exactly you mean when you say "socially created racial inequality". If you mean "a whole bunch of white people are racists and that's what causes the problems", I'm going to disagree with you. If you mean that "current social conditions result in racial inequalities", I'm 100% in agreement. The problem is that people use a phrase like the one you used, but then argue for "white racism is to blame".

IMO, that's non-productive. It makes it about the intent of people, and seems to be more about placing blame and creating a scapegoat or enemy to fight, rather than socio-economic conditions which we could all work together to fix. I tend to believe that you're a lot more likely to come to agreement on solutions to social problems if you start by objectively defining the problem instead of subjectively finding a "side" to blame for it. The latter immediately puts half of the people in defensive mode and is likely to not actually do anything useful. Well, except create discord and force people to "pick a side", that is.

Quote:
Yes, people on the other side are also part of the problem, labeling everything as a result of racism, but you are the other "half" of the problem, denying the existence of it. You say that you believe it exists, but when several scenarios are presented, you continuously find ways to justify the actions.


There's a huge gulf between believing something exists and blaming everything on that one thing, instead of considering other more likely explanations. This is seriously not about two equal and opposite "sides" pulling in opposite directions. There is not one side blaming everything on race and the other insisting that race is never a factor. It's one side blaming everything on race, and the other trying to examine each instance and determine what was the likely cause. The issue is that when it is about race, we're in agreement and there is no conflict. It's only the cases where the first side is likely wrong and the other side points out that "hey, this probably is one of those cases where race isn't the primary factor", that we encounter disagreement. As a result, if you're only looking at when the two "sides" conflict, you could easily arrive at the conclusion you are reaching.

Edited, Jun 15th 2018 3:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5251 Jun 15 2018 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,327 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
.
gbaji wrote:
I never said cops are not allowed to assess "situations" period.
gbaji wrote:
Their job is not to assess why they were asked to leave.
But it is their job to assess why they were asked to remove people from the shop.


Um... No, it's really not. My original statement is correct. The straw man interpretation you're grasped onto is not, but that's why a straw man is a fallacy.

Their job is only to asses that the two men were asked to leave the shop, and that the person asking them to do so has the lawful authority to make that decision to require that they leave the shop.

That's it. If those two conditions are met, then the two men are committing the crime of trespassing. Period. Assessment done.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
1. Is the person making the request lawfully empowered to make such decisions? Check.

2. Is the person or persons being asked to leave still on the premisses? Check.
2 is actually the lawfully empowered person having to prove that a crime has been committed.


Huh? The crime is trespassing. If she's asked them to leave and they are still there, then a crime has been committed and is being committed right there, in front of the cops, while they are present. They even went and asked the two men to leave, three times. The two men refused. I'm not sure how much more cut and dried this can be from the cops perspective.

Quote:
In this case she'd have to prove that the two people that walked into the store broke known rules


No. She doesn't. WTF? The "store rules" are not laws that the police are enforcing. Trespassing is. Her "rules" can be anything she wants them to be. Again, that's not for the cops to determine. That's a matter for the courts (if there's some sort of civil rights violation, for example).

Quote:
To do that she'd have to show the rules were on display, either on the front door or somewhere else easily visable. Was there a sign telling everyone that they must order something in less than five minutes or they must leave? Or she'd have to prove they were causing a disturbance, which would require eye witness collaboration. Speaking of witnesses, several have said that a woman had entered before these two men and got the bathroom code without ordering anything, and another admitted to have been sitting around for a couple of hours without buying anything.


Literally none of what you just wrote is true. And I'm going to leave off the rest of your post, since it's just you doubling down on this same completely false assumption. The police don't care what the store rules are. It's not their job to determine whether the store owner/manager has a valid reason for asking someone to leave. We don't put our police in the position of having to make this determination precisely because it's a freaking nutty thing to try to expect a cop to do. Whatever reason the owner/manager has is their reason. If they want someone to leave, they can throw that person out. Period. It's their establishment. If the person doesn't leave, they are trespassing. If the customer wants to sue over this in civil court at some later date, they're free to do so, but it's totally not the cops job to make that determination on the scene at the time.

The cops only determine if the person is trespassing. This requires two things. That they determine that the owner/manager wants personsX to leave, and that they determine that personsX is aware of this and is refusing to leave. At that point personsX is/are committing the crime of trespassing. Period. There is nothing more involved in this at all. I'm not sure what makes you think that the police are empowered to decide the business policies of every private business owner in the country. They aren't. That's at best a civil matter. Not a police matter.

You're just like tripling down on dumb at this point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT