Sitting while Black

[CaDan]

You could be right and you could be wrong. If you have evidence that these people selectively shoo off blacks and allow whites to stay, then you would be right.

I'm not wrong about the Saint Paul Code. The skyways are open to the public unless there is a physical barrier and security system in place. A rent-a-cop from Nightingale Realty ain't gonna cut it.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not wrong about the Saint Paul Code. The skyways are open to the public unless there is a physical barrier and security system in place. A rent-a-cop from Nightingale Realty ain't gonna cut it.

I will take your word on the St. Paul codes. If people can sit there for periods of time, they should be allowed to sit there and that would not be a hard issue to discern legally. If anything, the cops should be able to tell the bank or whoever called them, that people are allowed to sit there and don't call us because someone is.

The issue of whether someone called because this person was black and would not if they were white, is a completely different issue and involves assumptions and speculations, without evidence.

 

[CaDan]

I will take your word on the St. Paul codes. If people can sit there for periods of time, they should be allowed to sit there and that would not be a hard issue to discern legally. If anything, the cops should be able to tell the bank or whoever called them, that people are allowed to sit there and don't call us because someone is.

The issue of whether someone called because this person was black and would not if they were white, is a completely different issue and involves assumptions and speculations, without evidence.

I've sat in all sorts of places in the skyway system in Saint Paul.

 

[bhsmte]

I've sat in all sorts of places in the skyway system in Saint Paul.

Ok, good for you. Maybe many blacks have as well.

 

[CaDan]

It's possible that the Nightingale Realty rent-a-cops are equal opportunity entitled jerks who take no account of race. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

 

[bhsmte]

It's possible that the Nightingale Realty rent-a-cops are equal opportunity entitled jerks who take no account of race. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

I have no idea whether they are or not.

 

[MachZer0]

He has been.

Maybe, but not in this thread

 

[MachZer0]

332 Minnesota Street is not a bank.

The officer said she was inside the bank

 

[MachZer0]

This doesn't in any way address my quote that was in answer to Mach's post, so let me go over it again.

CaDan has been pointing out white supremacy. In multiple threads.

Each of which has been a failure

 

[MachZer0]

It's possible that the Nightingale Realty rent-a-cops are equal opportunity entitled jerks who take no account of race. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

Do you even know if the "rent a cops" are white or black?

 

[CaDan]

Do you even know if the "rent a cops" are white or black?

Could be. Doesn't matter.

Your error here is assuming White Supremacy (or, if you like, racism) is a matter of personal animus only. It isn't. It is a system in which Black folks can participate.

 

[MachZer0]

Could be. Doesn't matter.

Your error here is assuming White Supremacy (or, if you like, racism) is a matter of personal animus only. It isn't. It is a system in which Black folks can participate.

Not sure how black men can be guilty of white supremacy

 

[MachZer0]

We see a pattern repeating itself. Black man breaks law. Black man is confronted for breaking the law. Black man resists and may even become violent. Black man pays the penalty. Root cause is blamed on racism

 

[CaDan]

Not sure how black men can be guilty of white supremacy

It's not a matter of guilt. That is a pretty consistent error made by those who work so hard to preserve the system.

"White Supremacy" is a descriptive term, not an accusatory one.

 

[CaDan]

We see a pattern repeating itself. Black man breaks law. Black man is confronted for breaking the law. Black man resists and may even become violent. Black man pays the penalty. Root cause is blamed on racism

I have pointed out several times that the only law breaking that occurred in this situation was by Officer Johnson. I have cited the police reports, Minnesota law, and Saint Paul statutes in support.

We see a pattern repeating itself. When confronted with the facts and the law, some people make intentional misstatements of both in order to justify violence against Black people.

Since we have established that the only response to this situation is a series of intentional falsehoods, and because one cannot really argue against someone who will not tell the truth, one must ask why? Why are people willing to go so far as to make fools of themselves with easily disproven falsehoods to support this violence? What is so terrifying to them?

As far as I know, this forum has no rule against being a professed bigot, so something else must cause this need to avoid coming right out and saying, "Blacks are subhumans who should be beaten if they venture into White spaces."

Why is that?

 

[MachZer0]

I have pointed out several times that the only law breaking that occurred in this situation was by Officer Johnson. I have cited the police reports, Minnesota law, and Saint Paul statutes in support.

We see a pattern repeating itself. When confronted with the facts and the law, some people make intentional misstatements of both in order to justify violence against Black people.

Since we have established that the only response to this situation is a series of intentional falsehoods, and because one cannot really argue against someone who will not tell the truth, one must ask why? Why are people willing to go so far as to make fools of themselves with easily disproven falsehoods to support this violence? What is so terrifying to them?

And you were wrong

 

[SummerMadness]

For some, the law only applies to white people. Black people are always in the wrong and are considered guilty until proven innocent. What's worse is that even know the law and the specific statutes, people are still in denial. It was public property, that is a fact. Therefore, it is unlawful to arrest a man for not committing a crime.

 

[Vylo]

So let me see if I have this right. The black guy was aggressively sitting on a public bench, and then aggressively refused to give his name to police who were defensively following him after he aggressively decided to leave the area he was being harassed about in the first place. The police then defensively grabbed him because he aggressively "squared his shoulders".

Yeah, sure, okay. You are all aggressively existing. Please stop before I call the police to defensively beat you out of the area.

 

[MachZer0]

For some, the law only applies to white people. Black people are always in the wrong and are considered guilty until proven innocent. What's worse is that even know the law and the specific statutes, people are still in denial. It was public property, that is a fact. Therefore, it is unlawful to arrest a man for not committing a crime.

You may have smething there. A black thug under the influence of marijuana sucker punches a neighborhood watchman, some say the law should not apply to him. Black thug under the influence of marijuana robs a convenience store and assaults a police officer and some say the law shouldn't apply to him. Black man carrying marijuana and paraphernalia trespassing on private property and resisting arrest, and some say the law should not apply to him. The laws apparently only apply to white men

 

[pyramid33]

St. Paul police report

He had been rousted from his seat and was leaving. Got tased and arrested anyway.

Link has a video with some not-appropriate-for-White-kids language and the police reports.

ETA: Link changed after consultation with Staff to go directly to the police reports. If you want to see the video, go find it yourself.

Nobody care's if you're black CaDan.


How about the abused Robin William's. So abused and nobody cared enough to save his life. White hater's.