Sitting while Black

[SummerMadness]

IMO, candan has attempted to show white supremacy in multiple threads, but has failed to provide evidence, that white supremacist motivation, was specifically involved in what he was trying to tie white supremacy to.

Does white supremacy exist with some people, sure it does. Does racism against whites exist with some people, sure it does. All sorts of racist thinking and behavior exists in the United States and or prejudice and pre conceived notions, based on ideology.

The face of racism has changed in this country in the last several decades and as with anything in a society, it will continue to change. Lastly, claiming racism, white supremacy and or prejudice, is a serious allegation and should be supported with adequate evidence, to support the specific claim or allegation, anyone is making.

White supremacy is a power structure, it is not as you imply here, a group of people with specific motivations. White supremacy is a system in which in which whites are placed at the top of society above others. There are many aspects of our society that maintain this structure and there many people who defend it. Defenders need not believe themselves part of a superior race to be tools of white supremacy.

 

[MachZer0]

It's not a bank. It's a building that used to be a bank. Now rented office space with a public thruway.

That isn't what the report states in your link

 

[bhsmte]

White supremacy is a power structure, it is not as you imply here, a group of people with specific motivations. White supremacy is a system in which in which whites are placed at the top of society above others. There are many aspects of our society that maintain this structure and there many people who defend it. Defenders need not believe themselves part of a superior race to be tools of white supremacy.

I agree with all that.

Does not remove the need to provide evidence, this structure is what caused certain events to take place and not just assuming or speculating it is why.

Again, this speculation, without evidence, is harmful, IMO.

 

[CaDan]

I have seen no objective evidence this guy was treated the way he was based on race.

As I mentioned yesterday, I thought the male cop was over the top in making the situation worse. If you have verifiable evidence this occurred because the guy was black, lets hear it.

The evidence is the history of street harassment and exclusion of Blacks from public places in the United States. This is what we have done for a couple centuries. That is the context in which these things take place. See, e.g., "Sundown Towns" by James Loewen and "The Warmth of Other Suns" by Isabel Wilkinson.

The evidence is that SPPD dispatched one officer on foot and a squad to a call that was not even a crime. Why would they do that? Is there a reason other than the fear of a Black body in the wrong place?

The evidence is that Officer Johnson, in violation of Minnesota law, proceeded to arrest Mr. Lollie for no offense that occurred in his presence. Is there a reason for that other than Mr. Lollie not giving sufficient deference to the White lady?

The problem with Skeptics is that they like to pretend history never happened, that we like each day in a beautiful new world new-formed with the rising of the sun of liberty and reason. Their attitudes are still shaped and formed by centuries of history and theology in America.

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence is the history of street harassment and exclusion of Blacks from public places in the United States. This is what we have done for a couple centuries. That is the context in which these things take place. See, e.g., "Sundown Towns" by James Loewen and "The Warmth of Other Suns" by Isabel Wilkinson.

The evidence is that SPPD dispatched one officer on foot and a squad to a call that was not even a crime. Why would they do that? Is there a reason other than the fear of a Black body in the wrong place?

The evidence is that Officer Johnson, in violation of Minnesota law, proceeded to arrest Mr. Lollie for no offense that occurred in his presence. Is there a reason for that other than Mr. Lollie not giving sufficient deference to the White lady?

The problem with Skeptics is that they like to pretend history never happened, that we like each day in a beautiful new world new-formed with the rising of the sun of liberty and reason. Their attitudes are still shaped and formed by centuries of history and theology in America.

Still no evidence and I believe you said you were a lawyer?

If you were in front of a judge and jury, is this the case you would make that this cop acted the way he did because of white supremacy? Good luck with that.

I don't pretend history never happened, but I also know, history doesn't automatically tell me what happened in the present, evidence does.

Pre-judgment, based on ideology either way, always runs into serious problems.

 

[CaDan]

That isn't what the report states in your link

Reading is fundamental and a map may be helpful, too.

The report consistently refers to the 1st National Bank Building with one exception.

But, to help you out, here's a a link to the website: First National Bank Building

Nice place, very deco on the first floor. Not as nice upstairs. A law firm that represented lots of car dealerships had its offices up there years ago and I took a lot of depos of car salesmen there.

 

[MachZer0]

Not true.

He was in a public thruway created by easement.

But you are correct that there is no way he is an innocent victim to you and your Invisible Empire. A black man is always the guilty aggressor. Always.

Lollie even admitted subsequently that there were signs restricting the area but claimed he didn't see them

 

[MachZer0]

Reading is fundamental and a map may be helpful, too.

The report consistently refers to the 1st National Bank Building with one exception.

But, to help you out, here's a a link to the website: First National Bank Building

Nice place, very deco on the first floor. Not as nice upstairs. A law firm that represented lots of car dealerships had its offices up there years ago and I took a lot of depos of car salesmen there.

Yes, private property

 

[CaDan]

Still no evidence and I believe you said you were a lawyer?

If you were in front of a judge and jury, is this the case you would make that this cop acted the way he did because of white supremacy? Good luck with that.

Get a couple of statements from witnesses (which were apparently taken according to Mr. Lollie, but not released by SPPD), get a couple experts on pattern and practice and we're good to go for a jury trial.

I don't pretend history never happened, but I also know, history doesn't automatically tell me what happened in the present, evidence does.

Pre-judgment, based on ideology either way, always runs into serious problems.

Ah! You think history isn't evidence! That explains it.

But you have an epistemological problem with that distinction. A determination of "what happened" does not happen in real time. It is a judgment or evaluation of the past. It is history. All the evidence is history because it happened in the past. The distinction between "evidence" and "history" becomes meaningless as we move through time.

Perhaps you are making some other sort of distinction, but I can't tell what it is.

 

[CaDan]

Yes, private property

Subject to a public use easement, much like a sidewalk. We've been over this.

 

[bhsmte]

Get a couple of statements from witnesses (which were apparently taken according to Mr. Lollie, but not released by SPPD), get a couple experts on pattern and practice and we're good to go for a jury trial.



Ah! You think history isn't evidence! That explains it.

But you have an epistemological problem with that distinction. A determination of "what happened" does not happen in real time. It is a judgment or evaluation of the past. It is history. All the evidence is history because it happened in the past. The distinction between "evidence" and "history" becomes meaningless as we move through time.

Perhaps you are making some other sort of distinction, but I can't tell what it is.

What happened to others in the past, is not credible evidence to what happens in the present.

If that was the case, courts would allow much more evidence to be admitted, then they actually do. And, if you truly want people today, to be judged on what others did in the past, then I would say that is a purely ideologically driven criteria.

This guy mentioned he was going to sue the police department, so he will have the opportunity to show the actions of the officers, was based on race. Let's see how that goes and what evidence is presented to prove that allegation.

 

[MachZer0]

Subject to a public use easement, much like a sidewalk. We've been over this.

Except where signs restricted access as Lollie admnitted

 

[bhsmte]

Except where signs restricted access as Lollie admnitted

If it was truly a public easement, any sign someone puts up does not supersede the established public easement. Signs are only legitimate, when they are in agreement with the law.

 

[MachZer0]

If it was truly a public easement, any sign someone puts up does not supersede the established public easement. Signs are only legitimate, when they are in agreement with the law.

We have no reason to believe the signs were in violation of the law. The only exculpatory evidence so far seems to be that Lollie is black

 

[bhsmte]

We have no reason to believe the signs were in violation of the law. The only exculpatory evidence so far seems to be that Lollie is black

Well, it clearly will be discovered (quite easily) if the signs were in accordance with the law.

I hope this guy sues, so all the evidence comes forward.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, it clearly will be discovered (quite easily) if the signs were in accordance with the law.

I hope this guy sues, so all the evidence comes forward.

Lollie has already filed a law suit but what he failed to do is file an official complaint with the PD. Which means it's all about money, not race

 

[MachZer0]

It's interesting to note that there were two people sitting in the restricted area. One left when asked, one did not. One got arrested, one did not. How weird is that?

 

[bhsmte]

It's interesting to note that there were two people sitting in the restricted area. One left when asked, one did not. One got arrested, one did not. How weird is that?

First, do we evidence yet to whether the area was a legit restricted area?

Second, do you have a link explaining that another person was asked to leave and did?

 

[SummerMadness]

First, do we evidence yet to whether the area was a legit restricted area?

We have evidence that it's a public easement and that the aformentioned signs do not exist.

Second, do you have a link explaining that another person was asked to leave and did?

I expect that information will not be forthcoming.

A black man was arrested, for some that means he's guilty regardless of the facts.

 

[bhsmte]

We have evidence that it's a public easement and that the aformentioned signs do not exist.

I expect that information will not be forthcoming.

A black man was arrested, for some that means he's guilty regardless of the facts.

Well, the lawsuit should provide more clarity to all this.