[Politcs] When your KID knows better than calling the police on someone simply because he's Black.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Is this laughable? Is this tragic? I really, honestly can't tell any more.

A young boy came to the defense of a black man on the Fourth of July as the boy's father questioned and later called the police on the man who said he was waiting for a friend at a San Francisco apartment building.

Wesly Michel recorded his encounter with the boy and his father, who appears to be white, and shared the video on Facebook, where it has garnered more than 1.2 million views.

During the three-and-a-half-minute recording, the boy can be heard pleading with his father not to call police on Michel, whom the father says is a "trespasser" in his building.

...

Michel encountered the father and son on Independence Day as he says he was waiting on a friend at an apartment building in San Francisco. The video begins as the man asks Michel to identify the person he is there to see and to "please call your friend on the call box and have them come down and get you."

Michel declines.

"They don't have to do that. You can just walk away," Michel responds.

The man, who appears to be holding open the door to the building during the conversation, tells Michel he's going to call the police.

"Daddy don't!" the child says as the man pulls out his cell phone.

Michel welcomes the call and reminds the man that he is being recorded.

"You're just gonna be the next person on TV, just remember that and you have your son with you," Michel tells the man.

The man calls the police and tells them that Michel is a "trespasser," who "tailgated" into the building, walking in as he was walking out.

As the man talks to police, his son begins pleading with him to leave and to not call police.

"Dad, don't. Please go," the boy says. "Daddy go. It's the better; I agree with him, daddy."

The boy begins to cry as his father describes Michel to police.

"Daddy, I don't like this. Let's go," he says.

"Listen to your son, walk away," Michel says. "I will stop this. I will stop the recording."

Michel's friend walks up as the man is on the phone with police. The friend appears to come from outside the building.

"Told you. Let's go now," the young boy says and begins pulling his dad. "Daddy, look what you've gotten us into. Let's go!"

The man asks for confirmation that the resident is Michel's friend and ends his call with police after telling them that Michel is "actually here with a resident." Police do not appear to respond to the scene.

The man asks Michel to stop recording, but he continues anyway.

"Now you're online forever," Michel said.

The mindset of this man is staggering. He doesn't threaten, he calls the cop on a black man knowing full well what has been happening to them because Michel doesn't follow his commands. And then he has the gall to say "Don't threaten me" when Michel says he's going to be the next person on TV?

Threaten? He's using the police to actually enforce his will and he's talking to Michel about threats? Do these people live in their own separate reality?

And the worst part? The insufferable smile he has on his face the entire time. This could be gambling with someone's life, and he's smirking.

And I feel you... I feel you who reads this and then declares Michel to be cruel for posting this video even though the boy was crying. Or that he was gloating after he was proven right. Those who want to find some victory to hold over Michel, in order to paint him as a brute or something for exposing the boy's father. We see through it. But please, continue anyway.

Bigotry is popular. Most people are bigots. Glad his kid knows better. I hope he keeps knowing better.

Yeah, but what about Bill Clinton?

Sorry, I don't have anything helpful to add. I read things like this all the time and it's just so depressing and tiring. It must be total shit living it.

There was a time when a white person walking down the sidewalk might see a young, black man and timidly cross the street out of some perceived threat in passing too closely to a "thug" or "gangsta." I guess the world of tomorrow will be much different and young black men walking down the sidewalk will cross the street for fear of passing too closely to an emboldened, middle-aged white person with a cell phone.

ObsidianJones:
Or that he was gloating after he was proven right.

He wasn't proven right. The dad wasn't wrong. What did that dad do:

He correctly identified that the person recording didn't live in the building.
He noticed the person recording taking advantage of him leaving to enter a locked building he couldn't otherwise access.
From the context of the conversation, it's clear he had asked the man recording for the name of who he was visiting and was refused an answer. The phone call with the police deescalates before the friend arrives, at the moment that is beeped out when presumably the man recording names who he was there to meet. nevermind that part that's bleeped out is him saying IDGAF. That was deescalation in the face of escalation from the other party.

What did the guy filming want the dad to do? Let a stranger in the building without a word and walk away

The guy recording did his best impression of an illicit intruder (pro tip: don't follow someone through a locked door without communicating with them, that's just dumb), then he indignantly refused to offer any peace of mind and tried to get the man to "just walk away", and then recorded him with the explicit intent of shaming him on the internet.

Edit for two reasons: following the rabbit hole of a video to Youtube, I see people thinking this guy called the cops on someone for standing outside the building. In case you make that mistake, the dad was standing outside the building, the man recording was the one inside the door refusing to step back outside or properly explain himself.

Second, what is that "calling the cops on a black man is basically murder" hot take about? The man filming himself says "Yes, yes, yes call the police" because he's expecting to embarrass him if the police show up. He wasn't afraid for his life, why are you?

Second edit: strike through above

tstorm823:

ObsidianJones:
Or that he was gloating after he was proven right.

He wasn't proven right. The dad wasn't wrong. What did that dad do:

He correctly identified that the person recording didn't live in the building.
He noticed the person recording taking advantage of him leaving to enter a locked building he couldn't otherwise access.
From the context of the conversation, it's clear he had asked the man recording for the name of who he was visiting and was refused an answer. The phone call with the police deescalates before the friend arrives, at the moment that is beeped out when presumably the man recording names who he was there to meet. nevermind that part that's bleeped out is him saying IDGAF. That was deescalation in the face of escalation from the other party.

What did the guy filming want the dad to do? Let a stranger in the building without a word and walk away

The guy recording did his best impression of an illicit intruder (pro tip: don't follow someone through a locked door without communicating with them, that's just dumb), then he indignantly refused to offer any peace of mind and tried to get the man to "just walk away", and then recorded him with the explicit intent of shaming him on the internet.

Edit for two reasons: following the rabbit hole of a video to Youtube, I see people thinking this guy called the cops on someone for standing outside the building. In case you make that mistake, the dad was standing outside the building, the man recording was the one inside the door refusing to step back outside or properly explain himself.

Second, what is that "calling the cops on a black man is basically murder" hot take about? The man filming himself says "Yes, yes, yes call the police" because he's expecting to embarrass him if the police show up. He wasn't afraid for his life, why are you?

Second edit: strike through above

I knew someone was going to advocate the white "victim."

Tailgating happens ALL the time; the only places that take it seriously enforce the strict adherence with security guards or a front desk staffed with people who have the RIGHT to question passersby. Had Michel not been black, had he been a guy who looked like the asshole calling the police, he would have HELD the fucking door open for him. Michel was under no obligation to give his name, his friend's name or his reason for being there to a stranger who took it upon himself to enforce a commonly broken rule no matter how politely or reasonably those things were demanded of him. If that guy felt there was a true threat (which, by the way, it's clear there's NOT a threat as the "suspect" is making quite the spectacle of your rude suspicion,) he could have walked away and called the police without putting himself and his goddamn CHILD in an escalating situation. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and "Super Doorman" deserves the key to the city for policing the stoops of apartment buildings everywhere...

Xprimentyl:

I knew someone was going to advocate the white ?victim.?

Tailgating happens ALL the time; the only places that take it seriously enforce the strict adherence with security guards or a front desk staffed with people who have the RIGHT to question passersby. Had Michel not been black, had he been a guy who looked like the asshole calling the police, he would have HELD the fucking door open for him. Michel was under no obligation to give his name, his friend?s name or his reason for being there to a stranger who took it upon himself to enforce a commonly broken rule no matter how politely or reasonably those things were demanded of him. If that guy felt there was a true threat (which, by the way, it?s clear there?s NOT a threat as the ?suspect? is making quite the spectacle of your rude suspicion,) he could have walked away and called the police without putting himself and his goddamn CHILD in an escalating situation. But hey, maybe I?m wrong and ?Super Doorman? deserves the key to the city for policing the stoops of apartment buildings everywhere?

Nobody is a victim.
Something being common doesn't make it correct. Don't sneak your way through locked doors you can't access yourself. You know what else is common? Racism. If I told you "people are racist all the time, why's this guy getting upset about it", I'd be a terrible person.
He wasn't guarding the stoop and enforcing rules for rules sake. He was trying to make sure a person that he had let into the building wasn't going to cause harm. He was being responsible for the consequences of his own actions by making sure the guy wasn't sneaking in to rob the place.

Everything you just said is wrong, but the worst by far is the suggestion that the guy should walk away before calling the police. That's what you want? This guy tried multiple ways himself to verify the person's intentions before calling the police, and so far as we can tell interacted politely, and the end result was the police didn't have to come. The solution you want is for the guy to walk away with his kid and call the police and say "this black guy just walked into my apartment building, you should come hunt him down." In what world is that more reasonable?

tstorm823:

Xprimentyl:

I knew someone was going to advocate the white ?victim.?

Tailgating happens ALL the time; the only places that take it seriously enforce the strict adherence with security guards or a front desk staffed with people who have the RIGHT to question passersby. Had Michel not been black, had he been a guy who looked like the asshole calling the police, he would have HELD the fucking door open for him. Michel was under no obligation to give his name, his friend?s name or his reason for being there to a stranger who took it upon himself to enforce a commonly broken rule no matter how politely or reasonably those things were demanded of him. If that guy felt there was a true threat (which, by the way, it?s clear there?s NOT a threat as the ?suspect? is making quite the spectacle of your rude suspicion,) he could have walked away and called the police without putting himself and his goddamn CHILD in an escalating situation. But hey, maybe I?m wrong and ?Super Doorman? deserves the key to the city for policing the stoops of apartment buildings everywhere?

Nobody is a victim.
Something being common doesn't make it correct. Don't sneak your way through locked doors you can't access yourself. You know what else is common? Racism. If I told you "people are racist all the time, why's this guy getting upset about it", I'd be a terrible person.
He wasn't guarding the stoop and enforcing rules for rules sake. He was trying to make sure a person that he had let into the building wasn't going to cause harm. He was being responsible for the consequences of his own actions by making sure the guy wasn't sneaking in to rob the place.

Everything you just said is wrong, but the worst by far is the suggestion that the guy should walk away before calling the police. That's what you want? This guy tried multiple ways himself to verify the person's intentions before calling the police, and so far as we can tell interacted politely, and the end result was the police didn't have to come. The solution you want is for the guy to walk away with his kid and call the police and say "this black guy just walked into my apartment building, you should come hunt him down." In what world is that more reasonable?

Well, thank God there's now video evidence of his righteousness online for all to see. Maybe now we should start politely pulling over speeders doing 5 mph over the speed limit, or politely accosting old ladies sampling a grape at the grocery store before paying for the whole bunch, or politely tattling on a moviegoer we catch sneaking in their Milk Duds from a store in lieu of paying the exorbitant prices at the theater. The sheer pettiness of this "crime" didn't merit a citizen's arrest, least of all one that involved your small child and "someone you perceived as a potential threat" (read: "a black man I don't know refusing to acquiesce to my, a stranger and no one in any position of authority, demands.") Unless he IS the door man in that building, he needed to mind his business and pick his fucking battles. YES, I absolutely believe he should have walked away with his child; Michel could have bene exactly what he "feared," so YES, that would have been more reasonable given the situation was nothing until he escalated it.

The fact is this is just another instance of a black person being profiled by an emboldened, racist and self-righteous white person who got called on their shit in grand form, and however you want to victimize, yes, VICTIMIZE, the model citizen in that video, it doesn't change that fact.

And equating racism to tailgating? Really? I can't even begin to dignify that in good faith.

Xprimentyl:
(read: ?a black man I don?t know refusing to acquiesce to my, a stranger and no one in any position of authority, demands.?)

This is the thing. Why would anyone need to explain to another person who has no authority whatsoever who they are or why they are where they are? This doesn't happen (to me, anyway) in my neck of the woods, but I'd be seriously fucked off if it did.

Xprimentyl:

Maybe now we should start politely pulling over speeders doing 5 mph over the speed limit, or politely accosting old ladies sampling a grape at the grocery store before paying for the whole bunch, or politely tattling on a moviegoer we catch sneaking in their Milk Duds from a store in lieu of paying the exorbitant prices at the theater.

You still don't seem to understand what happened here. The dad left (presumedly) his home with his son, and the person filming went in through that open door. It's not as though he saw a guy sneak in any old building and decided to act as the police. The guy filming got into the locked building because he, the dad, was the one that opened the door which let him in. If this dad had let the man go in without question and then someone got robbed (or worse), it would be partially the dad's fault for letting a criminal into the building. A quick "excuse me, what are you going in there for" (imagining what might have started the exchange) is in no way unreasonable. I work in a similarly locked building, and if I let someone in the building, I typically joke "you're not an axe-murderer, are you?" And even with an asinine joke like that, they still pretty universally tell me who they're there to see, that they were waiting at the door for.

And when someone refuses to tell you who they're there for, refuses to step outside, and gives you answers like "I don't give a f^&8, I don't have to tell you [email protected]#$" you call the authorities.

tstorm823:

Xprimentyl:

Maybe now we should start politely pulling over speeders doing 5 mph over the speed limit, or politely accosting old ladies sampling a grape at the grocery store before paying for the whole bunch, or politely tattling on a moviegoer we catch sneaking in their Milk Duds from a store in lieu of paying the exorbitant prices at the theater.

You still don't seem to understand what happened here. The dad left (presumedly) his home with his son, and the person filming went in through that open door. It's not as though he saw a guy sneak in any old building and decided to act as the police. The guy filming got into the locked building because he, the dad, was the one that opened the door which let him in. If this dad had let the man go in without question and then someone got robbed (or worse), it would be partially the dad's fault for letting a criminal into the building. A quick "excuse me, what are you going in there for" (imagining what might have started the exchange) is in no way unreasonable. I work in a similarly locked building, and if I let someone in the building, I typically joke "you're not an axe-murderer, are you?" And even with an asinine joke like that, they still pretty universally tell me who they're there to see, that they were waiting at the door for.

And when someone refuses to tell you who they're there for, refuses to step outside, and gives you answers like "I don't give a f^&8, I don't have to tell you [email protected]#$" you call the authorities.

This Michel guy literally has to do none of that. He doesn't have to divulge any information or tell him where he's going. Ask all you want but this is not 1984.

The blocker has a right to ask things and to stop him from coming into his unit. But his building? Maybe you guys have different laws in America. Also, the blocker would be responsible? Yeah that's the main reason for my response. That's just nonsense.

Also, where is the presumption of innocence? Or is that only for white people. Lastly, talking about recording from your earlier post. If I was a black man in America, I'd be video everything. Your word means squat to white people (and your providing evidence of this right now.) Its an insurance policry so you don't go to jail for someone elses prejudice. I'd probably do it if I was a woman too.

I wonder if scared white people have the police on speed dial

911 is too many digits to dial when the nearest black person jaywalks or uses a 30 minute parking space for 31 minutes

trunkage:

This Michel guy literally has to do none of that. He doesn't have to divulge any information or tell him where he's going. Ask all you want but this is not 1984.

The blocker has a right to ask things and to stop him from coming into his unit. But his building? Maybe you guys have different laws in America. Also, the blocker would be responsible? Yeah that's the main reason for my response. That's just nonsense.

Also, where is the presumption of innocence? Or is that only for white people. Lastly, talking about recording from your earlier post. If I was a black man in America, I'd be video everything. Your word means squat to white people (and your providing evidence of this right now.) Its an insurance policy so you don't go to jail for someone else's prejudice. I'd probably do it if I was a woman too.

Why is he "the blocker?" Once again, the man filming is already inside the building. The dad is not physically preventing him from going wherever he wants to. The dad is outside of the building asking why the person filming went into it. This isn't taking anyone's word over another, this is literally just looking at the footage. It's taken from the inside of the building looking out.

And you probably think it's nonsense because you think I meant he would be legally responsible for crimes committed, which would be nonsense. But morally, he would be. If I let someone into a building they shouldn't be in and they murdered someone, they won't take me to trial but that doesn't mean I wasn't morally negligent. Yes, I think someone who has access to an otherwise locked facility has the moral obligation not to let random strangers in without justification.

Guy works for YouTube, a company full of idiots. Wouldn't be suprised if he keeps his job. Especially when one of their bigger YTers profited off of a black mans downward spiral and eventual death.

Also apparently the jackass calling the cops his dad was killed by someone who did what the guy filming the video did. So don't be suprised if that's his defense.

ObsidianJones:
Is this laughable? Is this tragic? I really, honestly can't tell any more.

Speaking as someone who requires ID entry to various places of work, at one level I think it's entirely appropriate to demand people you don't know verify they have a reason to be there if they try to follow you through a door into a restricted area.

On the other hand, the $64,000 question is whether the guy would have challenged if the the person following wasn't black. And also whether he handled it well; it seems to me quite possibly not.

Agema:

And also whether he handled it well; it seems to me quite possibly not.

Out of curiosity, what possible better outcome could there be? He seems to have behaved calmly and rationally, and then nobody was hurt, nobody was arrested, there was no physical altercation, and also a random person was not allowed to trespass into the building unaccompanied. I'm pretty confident this was handled literally as responsibly as possible.

RaikuFA:

Also apparently the jackass calling the cops his dad was killed by someone who did what the guy filming the video did. So don't be suprised if that?s his defense.

Defense against what exactly? Do you expect this man to go to trial for dialing 911 about a perceived intruder?

tstorm823:

ObsidianJones:
Or that he was gloating after he was proven right.

He wasn't proven right. The dad wasn't wrong. What did that dad do:

He correctly identified that the person recording didn't live in the building.
He noticed the person recording taking advantage of him leaving to enter a locked building he couldn't otherwise access.
From the context of the conversation, it's clear he had asked the man recording for the name of who he was visiting and was refused an answer. The phone call with the police deescalates before the friend arrives, at the moment that is beeped out when presumably the man recording names who he was there to meet. nevermind that part that's bleeped out is him saying IDGAF. That was deescalation in the face of escalation from the other party.

What did the guy filming want the dad to do? Let a stranger in the building without a word and walk away

The guy recording did his best impression of an illicit intruder (pro tip: don't follow someone through a locked door without communicating with them, that's just dumb), then he indignantly refused to offer any peace of mind and tried to get the man to "just walk away", and then recorded him with the explicit intent of shaming him on the internet.

Edit for two reasons: following the rabbit hole of a video to Youtube, I see people thinking this guy called the cops on someone for standing outside the building. In case you make that mistake, the dad was standing outside the building, the man recording was the one inside the door refusing to step back outside or properly explain himself.

Second, what is that "calling the cops on a black man is basically murder" hot take about? The man filming himself says "Yes, yes, yes call the police" because he's expecting to embarrass him if the police show up. He wasn't afraid for his life, why are you?

Second edit: strike through above

Sorry for taking so long. I had a beach day. took all my gadgets. Loved it.

So hey, thanks for being the one brave enough to speak out. Good spar to all.

Correctly identifying someone who doesn't live in the building does not mean you correctly identified a trespasser. And that's a very important point because he didn't call the police over "I don't know who this person is", he called in a trespasser.

Again, I'm finding it so very hard to wonder if you're trolling. I lived in Apartment buildings most of my life. People hold doors open for strangers all the time. Given that it's common place for most others, to say something as inflammatory as Michel does his "best impression of an illicit intruder" comes from your perception and it actually doesn't enter into the conversation. I give Cukor more credit than that, actually.

Here's the mistake you're making. He doesn't have to explain himself. Michel had to explain to no one. You might not like the idea. That's fine. If you can show me where in this man's lease does it give him the right to question and screen visitors in the building with authority, then you have something. Until then, Since Michel wasn't entering Cukor's actual unit... Michel has as much duty to explain himself to Cukor as you have the same express duty to explain yourself to me.

None at all.

And to your last point, if you can point to the place where I said that "calling the cops on a black man is basically murder", I'd be ever so grateful.

ObsidianJones:

Sorry for taking so long. I had a beach day. took all my gadgets. Loved it.

You take gadgets to the beach? Doesn't one go to the beach to sunbathe, or swim, or...stuff?

Also, I'd say you're lucky that it's summer in your hemisphere, but considering how fucked the climate system is right now, I can't manage it. :(

Hawki:

ObsidianJones:

Sorry for taking so long. I had a beach day. took all my gadgets. Loved it.

You take gadgets to the beach? Doesn't one go to the beach to sunbathe, or swim, or...stuff?

Also, I'd say you're lucky that it's summer in your hemisphere, but considering how fucked the climate system is right now, I can't manage it. :(

Dude.

I took my solar panel for my cell phone, my Anker powerhouse 400 (I'm going to hopefully get a Goal Zero Yeti 400 lithium soon as it has Solar charging) to power my Wagan 12v Cooler, my new Pacific Breeze Beach Tent with my loungers, and I topped it off with my Dewalt Work site fan that runs off of my 5 amp battery. I had no idea I was outside in nature.

It was awesome!

And me shirtless might be against the Geneva Convention. They haven't gotten back to me with my inquiries.

ObsidianJones:

Hawki:

ObsidianJones:

Sorry for taking so long. I had a beach day. took all my gadgets. Loved it.

You take gadgets to the beach? Doesn't one go to the beach to sunbathe, or swim, or...stuff?

Also, I'd say you're lucky that it's summer in your hemisphere, but considering how fucked the climate system is right now, I can't manage it. :(

Dude.

I took my solar panel for my cell phone, my Anker powerhouse 400 (I'm going to hopefully get a Goal Zero Yeti 400 lithium soon as it has Solar charging) to power my Wagan 12v Cooler, my new Pacific Breeze Beach Tent with my loungers, and I topped it off with my Dewalt Work site fan that runs off of my 5 amp battery. I had no idea I was outside in nature.

It was awesome!

And me shirtless might be against the Geneva Convention. They haven't gotten back to me with my inquiries.

Suns out, guns out mate.

tstorm823:

Xprimentyl:

Maybe now we should start politely pulling over speeders doing 5 mph over the speed limit, or politely accosting old ladies sampling a grape at the grocery store before paying for the whole bunch, or politely tattling on a moviegoer we catch sneaking in their Milk Duds from a store in lieu of paying the exorbitant prices at the theater.

You still don't seem to understand what happened here. The dad left (presumedly) his home with his son, and the person filming went in through that open door. It's not as though he saw a guy sneak in any old building and decided to act as the police. The guy filming got into the locked building because he, the dad, was the one that opened the door which let him in. If this dad had let the man go in without question and then someone got robbed (or worse), it would be partially the dad's fault for letting a criminal into the building. A quick "excuse me, what are you going in there for" (imagining what might have started the exchange) is in no way unreasonable. I work in a similarly locked building, and if I let someone in the building, I typically joke "you're not an axe-murderer, are you?" And even with an asinine joke like that, they still pretty universally tell me who they're there to see, that they were waiting at the door for.

I lived in an apartment complex with hundreds of units. It was a gated community meaning, when you pulled up in your car, you had to input a code to open the gate and allow passage. There was a sign on the unmanned gate stating something to the effect of "one car at a time." If I had a dollar for every time over the course of the three years I lived there that I saw multiple cars tailgate through on a single entry of the code, hell, for every time I tailgated, I could buy a small island far from this country and nonsense like this. I didn't know MOST of my neighbors meaning they were strangers. By your rationale, any one of us would have been justified in slamming on our brakes and demanding personal information and proof that the other belonged there, then calling the cops when, *SURPRISE*, strangers get upset when they're harassed. How insane does that sound?

Presuming he is a tenant of that building, that man who called the police wasn't leaving his "home;" he was leaving a building in which he and several likely a hundred other people live. And more than likely, most of those people are strangers who might have visitors who are further removed strangers; why did he chose Michel? Why that stranger? Why did he feel the right to demand of that stranger his reasons for being there? Why did he think that was ok? Baffle2 said it:

Baffle2:
Why would anyone need to explain to another person who has no authority whatsoever who they are or why they are where they are? This doesn't happen (to me, anyway) in my neck of the woods, but I'd be seriously fucked off if it did.

EXACTLY this; Michel had every right to be "seriously fucked off" and that rude asshole is lucky all he got was recorded.

And when someone refuses to tell you who they're there for, refuses to step outside, and gives you answers like "I don't give a f^&8, I don't have to tell you [email protected]#$" you call the authorities.

Um... no, I don't; MOST rational people don't; MOST people have no RIGHT to ask any of that of anyone. We don't engage with and demand personal and private information from strangers in a relatively public space ("public" insofar as it was a common area shared by all tenets of the building and not a private domicile let alone HIS private domicile.)

This is the exact problem; embolden, white people taking it upon themselves to put black people in their place and involving the police when they don't get their way. Decent people mind their own damn business; they don't make other people's business their own, then get pissy, pout, tattle to the cops, and then virtue signal that their "just doing the right thing." This is passive-aggressiveness with serious, potentially lethal, implications and entirely unjustified, and if the day comes that I, as a black man, have to answer every white person with questions and a cell phone, I'm out, America; fuck that... PERIOD.

tstorm823:

Out of curiosity, what possible better outcome could there be? He seems to have behaved calmly and rationally,

Calmly, yes. Rationally? I'm not so sure.

I think he's actually quite aggressive - not in the sense of being shouty and in-your-face, but that he leaps quickly to being accusatory and demanding. He potentially wasn't very polite, seemingly makes little or no effort to explain himself and how he feels about the situation in more detail, makes implicit demands (likely to get someone's back up) and then instantly threatens to call the police.

Sometimes it's the small things, and they can snowball into greater intransigence and conflict. Wesly Michel does not do himself any favours either - escalation usually requires two.

Kudos to the kid for trying to stop the whole situation.

I wonder why the dad thought it was a good idea to self-appoint himself as the security guard. What kind of mentality drove him to try to interrogate a stranger like that? It's not his job and obviously he isn't trained in that. Where did these people learn to be so paranoid and incompetent?

CaitSeith:
Kudos to the kid for trying to stop the whole situation.

I wonder why the dad thought it was a good idea to self-appoint himself as the security guard. What kind of mentality drove him to try to interrogate a stranger like that? It's not his job and obviously he isn't trained in that. Where did these people learn to be so paranoid and incompetent?

They didn't "learn" this paranoia; it's the deep-rooted racism that had been begrudgingly festering finally boiling over since the guy in the White House validated it and sanctioned white nationalism (y'know, we just got our country back from the black guy who fucked everything up) and essentially told them it's ok assert themselves when they feel the darkies get out of line.

What a sniveling shit of a human, blatantly trying to get off on a power trip. Best of luck to the kiddo, what it feels like to be growing up saddled with a loud and proud bigoted embarrassment for a parent ain't fun when you see through it all.

ObsidianJones:

Correctly identifying someone who doesn't live in the building does not mean you correctly identified a trespasser. And that's a very important point because he didn't call the police over "I don't know who this person is", he called in a trespasser.

You're right, he didn't call the police over "I don't know who this person is". That would be ridiculous. When he didn't know who the person was, he seems to have asked who the person was and was refused an answer. He would not name who he was there to see. The dad tried to get him to step outside because he didn't want to let a stranger into the building, and was refused that as well. These things change the circumstances. Everyone is acting as though the dad in the video saw a person go through an open door and spontaneously called the cops. You can tell from the conversation that was captured that they had already gone back and forth. the man went from stranger to trespasser when he wouldn't cooperate with the person who let him in the building.

Agema:

I think he's actually quite aggressive - not in the sense of being shouty and in-your-face, but that he leaps quickly to being accusatory and demanding. He potentially wasn't very polite, seemingly makes little or no effort to explain himself and how he feels about the situation in more detail, makes implicit demands (likely to get someone's back up) and then instantly threatens to call the police.

Sometimes it's the small things, and they can snowball into greater intransigence and conflict. Wesly Michel does not do himself any favours either - escalation usually requires two.

I may be making some assumptions of what happened before the camera turned on, but you're acting as though there was nothing. We have no idea how long the exchange happened before the camera turned on. I highly doubt the man filming "oh, the guy coming out of the building asked who I was there to see, better get my phone out!" There was some amount of interaction we can't see, that from the statements made in the video it's safe to assume the dad a) asked who he was there to visit, b) ask them to call on the callbox, c) ask him to step back outside the door. All of that had to happen already for the phrasing in the video to make any sense. And the guy filming cursing at the dad is how he behaves when he's putting himself on camera to make a case for himself, god knows what he said before turning the camera on. The only thing we know is it wasn't "I'm here to meet Cathy."

CaitSeith:
Kudos to the kid for trying to stop the whole situation.

The kid was trying to stop the situation because he was terrified of an altercation with a stranger. He wasn't bravely trying to stop his father from being a mega-racist, he was just trying to run away from conflict.

Please, people. Watch the video. If you really see a racist on a power trip, you've left reality behind entirely.

tstorm823:
the man went from stranger to trespasser when he wouldn't cooperate with the person who let him in the building.

No, he never became a trespasser. I feel it's been made quite clear he was there to meet a friend. He turns up at the end of the video.

I don't think the guy was actually a racist on a power trip, I just think he judged someone by the colour of their skin and then called the police. Hopefully a video will be uploaded soon of him accosting a white guy going about his business, then we can put this whole racism angle to bed.

tstorm823:

CaitSeith:
Kudos to the kid for trying to stop the whole situation.

The kid was trying to stop the situation because he was terrified of an altercation with a stranger.

That'd be good enough to deserve a kudos; but when the friend arrives, the kid saying "Told you!" shows that he knew better than his father. His dad was creating a conflict over something that wasn't their business for no good reason.

Baffle2:

No, he never became a trespasser. I feel it's been made quite clear he was there to meet a friend. He turns up at the end of the video.

I don't think the guy was actually a racist on a power trip, I just think he judged someone by the colour of their skin and then called the police. Hopefully a video will be uploaded soon of him accosting a white guy going about his business, then we can put this whole racism angle to bed.

Here's a question for you: is someone with access to a locked facility obligated to let people into that locked facility?

That's relevant, because it isn't the situation that the dad accosted someone for being a stranger in the building. The interaction started when the dad was involuntarily used as a door jam. Is he obligated to let literally anyone who wants to into that building?

CaitSeith:

That'd be good enough to deserve a kudos; but when the friend arrives, the kid saying "Told you!" shows that he knew better than his father. His dad was creating a conflict over something that wasn't their business for no good reason.

The dad knew better. The kid was wrong.

Of course this is the bit you pull out

tstorm823:

trunkage:

This Michel guy literally has to do none of that. He doesn't have to divulge any information or tell him where he's going. Ask all you want but this is not 1984.

The blocker has a right to ask things and to stop him from coming into his unit. But his building? Maybe you guys have different laws in America. Also, the blocker would be responsible? Yeah that's the main reason for my response. That's just nonsense.

Also, where is the presumption of innocence? Or is that only for white people. Lastly, talking about recording from your earlier post. If I was a black man in America, I'd be video everything. Your word means squat to white people (and your providing evidence of this right now.) Its an insurance policy so you don't go to jail for someone else's prejudice. I'd probably do it if I was a woman too.

Why is he "the blocker?" Once again, the man filming is already inside the building. The dad is not physically preventing him from going wherever he wants to. The dad is outside of the building asking why the person filming went into it. This isn't taking anyone's word over another, this is literally just looking at the footage. It's taken from the inside of the building looking out.

He literally tries to deny access to the complex. You could say he didn't succeed which means he's an attempted blocker. You could say it hasn't been proven in court making him an alledged blocker. But blocking was his goal.

As already stated the footage doesnt concern me. It's like a white guy having a gun. Its protection from idiots like this.

And you probably think it's nonsense because you think I meant he would be legally responsible for crimes committed, which would be nonsense. But morally, he would be. If I let someone into a building they shouldn't be in and they murdered someone, they won't take me to trial but that doesn't mean I wasn't morally negligent. Yes, I think someone who has access to an otherwise locked facility has the moral obligation not to let random strangers in without justification.

I can agree with the moral thing.

Another resident had some stuff stolen from a complex I resided in only a year and a half ago. I had no interaction with the thieves but still felt remorse

But I still let people into the complex afterwards because that is an outlier case. The theives were Asians. They are well aware that most Asian keep a bunch of money at home instead of a bank, hence were targetting them in the complex.

I probably should have stopped all Asians from coming in. But I'm not going to do that. 99.9% of Asians aren't thieves. Treating a whole race like criminals because of a bad apple is against my philosophy.

tstorm823:

CaitSeith:

That'd be good enough to deserve a kudos; but when the friend arrives, the kid saying "Told you!" shows that he knew better than his father. His dad was creating a conflict over something that wasn't their business for no good reason.

The dad knew better. The kid was wrong.

Every fact we know points to the opposite.

If you think he's a burgler why would you endanger your child like that standing in front of him while you ring the cops?. He could stab you and run!

tstorm823:
You're right, he didn't call the police over "I don't know who this person is". That would be ridiculous. When he didn't know who the person was, he seems to have asked who the person was and was refused an answer. He would not name who he was there to see. The dad tried to get him to step outside because he didn't want to let a stranger into the building, and was refused that as well. These things change the circumstances. Everyone is acting as though the dad in the video saw a person go through an open door and spontaneously called the cops. You can tell from the conversation that was captured that they had already gone back and forth. the man went from stranger to trespasser when he wouldn't cooperate with the person who let him in the building.

Disagreement.

He went from stranger and stayed as a stranger because, and I see you've been dodging this issue as many times as it's brought up, Cukor is not in a position where anyone has to legally answer to him. Nor is he in a position to sign off or allow people to enter that building as he see fit. Michel went from Stranger to at most 'Dick who won't answer my question'.

That doesn't warrant the cops.

You can talk about all the niceties that Cukor tried to do with Michel. He wasn't in the position to ask these things. He could always ask. But he can get a no.

Cukor's need to have his curosity stated is no stronger or more urgent than Michel's need to not be harassed for another thing like he always has just for living his life. Both are equally as valid, and both definitely don't need the cops called if they are not met.

Yet one person did.

Apparently, this man's father was killed by a trespasser because the police didn't come when he tried calling them so this guy is prolly extra wary of trespassers. This one has some nuance to it.

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/amp/Slain-Berkeley-man-s-family-says-police-share-3480628.php

Are you serious? What was there in the video to imply that he was doing this 'simply because the man was black'? The man filming was antagonistic and refused to answer reasonable questions about his purpose gaining entry into locked premises without using a key. The dad was doing his duty to the other tenants, the kid was just self interested and didn't want to be involved in the situation for no other reason than the conflict scared him.

This is a disturbing world we live in in which people will rather pull out their phones to attempt to publicly vilify someone rather than answer a few simple questions to resolve a conflict. That's just terrifying. What are you even supposed to do? You can try to do what you think is right and suddenly you have thousands of people judging your every word and the framing and editing is all at the discretion of someone trying to make you look bad. You can't just surrender anytime someone pulls out a phone, but at the same time who wants to be dragged through the mud like this? And anybody can do this, any time, to force the situation in their favor, whether they are in the right or not. They may never even post the video, but the threat alone would be enough to make a lot of people cave. I hope I never find myself in a conflict like this.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here