Sitting while Black

[QR1]

The only prosecution in this case should be the officers involved. Gangsters with badges. . ..

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Have you not heard about the "talk?"

Seriously?

My sis in law didn't get to be where she's at because she had some "you're black" talk with her mom.

You're insulting black people and you don't even realize it.

 

[SummerMadness]

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I said he didn't do anything to help the situation. And he wasn't abused. Cops acted within the boundaries they needed to, in my opinion. We'll see what a review brings about. Charges not being filed doesn't automatically mean an arrest is bogus.

You've now shifted the goal post, before Mr. Lollie was trespassing. When it was apparent he wasn't trespassing, he was now squaring his shoulder and lunging at the police. When it is apparent he was never violent, now you're saying he was still wrong and brought it upon himself. Why is it so difficult to accept that the police were wrong, abused the authority, and brutalized with no cause? The police is clearly not accurate, yet you're still returning to it as a source of canonical information. Even if the bank got the trespassing information wrong, the police should know the law, they are the ones who supposedly uphold it.

White supremacy may be treated as the law of the land, but it's not the law of the land.

 

[AirPo]

Seriously?

My sis in law didn't get to be where she's at because she had some "you're black" talk with her mom.

You're insulting black people and you don't even realize it.

It's for the boys.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You've now shifted the goal post, before Mr. Lollie was trespassing. When it was apparent he wasn't trespassing, he was now squaring his shoulder and lunging at the police. When it is apparent he was never violent, now you're saying he was still wrong and brought it upon himself. Why is it so difficult to accept that the police were wrong, abused the authority, and brutalized with no cause? The police is clearly not accurate, yet you're still returning to it as a source of canonical information. Even if the bank got the trespassing information wrong, the police should know the law, they are the ones who supposedly uphold it.

White supremacy may be treated as the law of the land, but it's not the law of the land.

The police were working off the information they had. That information apparently was incorrect but they had no way of knowing that. The first officer was simply trying to ascertain the situation.

God forbid cops try to figure out what's going on.

This isn't about white supremacy.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's for the boys.

Still insulting. My SIL says you're just trying to justify the screams of RACISM, which she doesn't believe was a factor here.

But I'm sure she's just an Uncle Tom, right? A brainwashed victim of white supremacy for sure.

 

[AirPo]

Still insulting. My SIL says you're just trying to justify the screams of RACISM, which she doesn't believe was a factor here.

But I'm sure she's just an Uncle Tom, right? A brainwashed victim of white supremacy for sure.

You just ran this by your SIL?

And how is it insulting? The "talk" is not something I made up.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You just ran this by your SIL?

Yes, she and I have been talking via text throughout the morning.

And how is it insulting? The "talk" is not something I made up.

it's the fact that you think that successful blacks are only successful because of this "talk".

 

[Joykins]

it's the fact that you think that successful blacks are only successful because of this "talk".

Only if you define successful as "taking extraordinary efforts to not antagonize police?"

 

[AirPo]

Yes, she and I have been talking via text throughout the morning.



it's the fact that you think that successful blacks are only successful because of this "talk".

What in the world makes you think I implied anything remotely like that?

Only if you define successful as "taking extraordinary efforts to not antagonize police?"

Thanks Joykins!

 

[SummerMadness]

The police were working off the information they had. That information apparently was incorrect but they had no way of knowing that. The first officer was simply trying to ascertain the situation.

He told the first police officer what happened, he clearly explains what happened in the video. He even explained the law of the skyway to her in the video, he is allowed to sit since there is no sign.

God forbid cops try to figure out what's going on.

Cops can figure out what happened without unjustifiably grabbing people. He turned on the video because she grabbed him initially. The second officer did the same, apparently a black man has no rights and must be subject to unconstitutional seizures.

This isn't about white supremacy.

Yes it is, there is a demand that a black man submit and relinquish his rights as some believe they do not matter. The police are treated as being innocently ignorant, rather than protectors and upholders of law. The simple fact is you should be angry that the police do not know the law, not that a man knows the laws and asserts his rights. However, white supremacy treats every black man as unlawful by nature, asserting his rights as an equal dismantles this racial hierarchy, thus he is treated as unlawful at the outset.

 

[MachZer0]

All you can do is point fingers at the president? How sad...

I merely used him as example to disprove your claim of incompetence

I feel for your loss of keeping on track here.

But like I said, I didn't think you'd really have an issue with this prosecutor filing charges against Lollie.

No need to think about. I believe he should have been prosecuted

 

[stamperben]

I merely used him as example to disprove your claim of incompetence

No need to think about. I believe he should have been prosecuted

How nice of you to think Obama is a competent president. I might disagree with you on that in a broad sense however.

Have you voiced your concern with the prosecutor? Told him he should go ahead despite the fact that he himself has said he has nothing to go to trial with?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Have you not heard about the "talk?"

this was in response to

Oh really...How is it that there are SO MANY black people in this world that manage to not even come into contact with a police officer on any given day?

I realize now that I left out the word successful in the post, so my bad.

It still is rather insulting to think that the only reason black people have avoided the police is because of the "talk". Since a large number of my extended family is black, I feel I can say that none of them got the "talk", except in terms of "respect those in authority over you, even if you disagree with them". A good number of my extended family has managed to avoid getting in trouble with police, despite being pulled over for speeding a few times, or being present at parties they probably shouldn't have. A few of them have managed to get themselves into trouble, though, and it was usually for the same reasons (speeding, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time) and they ended in trouble because they handled the situation wrong.

My brother, OTOH, was roughed up by a black cop after getting pulled over in Detroit with my SIL and two of her cousins. He wasn't arrested but he wasn't overly respectful of the cop once the cop pulled the "you must be a pimp" card on him, and the cop didn't care for my brother's smart attitude.

 

[SummerMadness]

I remember my first "what is wrong with the police" encounter. I was 13 years old, standing in front of a church waiting for my father to pick me up after a Boy Scout meeting. I was in a Boy Scout uniform and the police officer rolled up and shined the squad car light in my face and started questioning me as if I had done something wrong. It didn't matter that I was waiting for a parent, it didn't matter that I was not doing anything wrong, it didn't matter what I was wearing, I was now a suspect. I was only saved from continued questioning when the white kid standing next to the tree out of view of the police officer emerged and started to argue... then the police officer went on his way.

Dave Chappelle made a joke that every black person should have a white friend with them to deal with the police, there is some truth to that.

 

[MachZer0]

I remember my first "what is wrong with the police" encounter. I was 13 years old, standing in front of a church waiting for my father to pick me up after a Boy Scout meeting. I was in a Boy Scout uniform and the police officer rolled up and shined the squad car light in my face and started questioning me as if I had done something wrong. It didn't matter that I was waiting for a parent, it didn't matter that I was not doing anything wrong, it didn't matter what I was wearing, I was now a suspect. I was only saved from continued questioning when the white kid standing next to the tree out of view of the police officer emerged and started to argue... then the police officer went on his way.

Dave Chappelle made a joke that every black person should have a white friend with them to deal with the police, there is some truth to that.

Interesting. I've had similar experiences but with no one to come forward to argue on my behalf. Must be because I'm white

 

[MachZer0]

How nice of you to think Obama is a competent president. I might disagree with you on that in a broad sense however.

Have you voiced your concern with the prosecutor? Told him he should go ahead despite the fact that he himself has said he has nothing to go to trial with?

I don't live in that jurisdiction so the prosecutor is not beholden to me

 

[AirPo]

this was in response to



I realize now that I left out the word successful in the post, so my bad.

Well that makes a huge difference.

It still is rather insulting to think that the only reason black people have avoided the police is because of the "talk". Since a large number of my extended family is black, I feel I can say that none of them got the "talk", except in terms of "respect those in authority over you, even if you disagree with them". A good number of my extended family has managed to avoid getting in trouble with police, despite being pulled over for speeding a few times, or being present at parties they probably shouldn't have. A few of them have managed to get themselves into trouble, though, and it was usually for the same reasons (speeding, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time) and they ended in trouble because they handled the situation wrong.

Now you're not forgetting a word, you putting in one that was never there. What in the world makes you think I implied anything remotely like the "only" reason?

My brother, OTOH, was roughed up by a black cop after getting pulled over in Detroit with my SIL and two of her cousins. He wasn't arrested but he wasn't overly respectful of the cop once the cop pulled the "you must be a pimp" card on him, and the cop didn't care for my brother's smart attitude.

The point being that the lesson of the "talk" is exponential more important for blacks than whites.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The "talk" is one every parent should have with their kid and it shouldn't be "since you're black..." because that teaches kids that they're victims. It teaches kids to not be responsible for their actions. It teaches them to scream "this is all because I'm black" every time something bad happens to them.

You tell your kids to respect the ones in authority. Like it or not, police DO have authority. Police do abuse that authority. This was not a case of that though. Ultimately, there are two major factors here. One is that the security guard called the police and we really don't know what was said between the guard and Lollie, and the guard and the dispatcher. Two is that Lollie refused to do what the police officers were telling him to do. Whether the police are right or wrong in a person's mind is actually irrelevant to the present situation. I would've had more faith in this guy's story if he had been respectful the whole way through, stopped to talk with the officer rather than trying to speed walk away and then continuing to argue with three more officers. Had he maintained decorum, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I realize there are people who honestly believe that he was screwed from the beginning, but I doubt that, because as I said, I know plenty of people who've extricated themselves from such situations easily.

 

[SummerMadness]

The "talk" is one every parent should have with their kid and it shouldn't be "since you're black..." because that teaches kids that they're victims. It teaches kids to not be responsible for their actions. It teaches them to scream "this is all because I'm black" every time something bad happens to them.

That is not the talk. The talk is the realization at a young age that everyone is not treated the same way. We all grow up as equals, but sometime around 10 years of age, it becomes apparent that we are not all treated as equals. No one is taught that everything bad that happens to them is because they are black.

You tell your kids to respect the ones in authority. Like it or not, police DO have authority. Police do abuse that authority. This was not a case of that though.

Everyone understands that, and they are also taught about the unequal treatment they may encounter.

And this was a case of the police abusing their authority. The man exercised his constitutional rights, he does not have to identify himself as he did not break any laws and the officer had no cause to detain him, he can only be detained for trespassing if she is witness to it. So everything about demanding his name and arresting without telling him what he is charged for is an abuse of authority.

Ultimately, there are two major factors here. One is that the security guard called the police and we really don't know what was said between the guard and Lollie, and the guard and the dispatcher.

That does not matter, by law he is allowed to sit there. There are other seating areas in the skyway area, those that are not open to the public have proper signs.

Two is that Lollie refused to do what the police officers were telling him to do. Whether the police are right or wrong in a person's mind is actually irrelevant to the present situation. I would've had more faith in this guy's story if he had been respectful the whole way through, stopped to talk with the officer rather than trying to speed walk away and then continuing to argue with three more officers.

He was not detained, why should he have to stop to make sure the officer gets her report done? The problem is the officer had no right to detain him, which is why the officer continues walks with Mr. Lollie and does not stop him. She did not witness a crime being committed and trespassing requires her to witness the act. In fact, when he asserted his rights, she chuckled. She did not tell him to stop because she was not able to do so by law.

Had he maintained decorum...

The man was polite the entire time, short of shining their shoes. Asserting his rights is completely maintaining decorum. He was not violent, yet he was treated violently.

Herein lies the problem with your argument, you are not referring to the law. CaDan has pointed to the law in showing that Mr. Lollie did not break the law and that police acted in an unlawful manner. Rather than demand that our public servants learn the letter of the law and not abuse their power, you blame the citizen that did nothing wrong. Contempt of cop is not a crime. I can walk up to a police officer right now and call him an ugly pig. Is that rude? Yes. Is that immature? Yes. Is it a crime for which I can be arrested? No. And until people learn that and expect their public servants to follow the law, nothing changes.