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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

generals3:

CaitSeith:

generals3:
someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong

Falsely accusing someone with the police IS objectively wrong.

What did he accuse him of? trespassing? Well he didn't have access to the building yet let himself in, he refused to provide any information (at all) that would suggest he is indeed invited and someone would have opened the door for him had he not tailgated. So as far as the evidence goes: he's a tresspasser. Had he not entered the building or had the door been opened by the person inviting him than the accusation would have been entirely false. Unfortunately for Michel at that point in time he was a trespasser.

If you need to reach for such loopholes, it's no longer objective. I wouldn't have shamed Cukor; I would have sued his pants off! I got invited to my friend's apartment, and he has no authority to revoke such invitation.

generals3:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.

Not at all, he did not do "NOTHING", he entered a building he should not have access to. If I enter your home by slipping through your door when you leave you wouldn't say I did nothing.
The fact most people decide to ignore the type of infraction Michel committed does not make the infraction just go away. It's the same with pedestrians crossing the street when the lights are red and no cars are in sight. Most people do it but it's an infranction none the less. Michel, did at that time trespass and refused to aleviate concerns with regards to his trespassing as such the police was called and given all the information they required so they could come and assess the situation.

So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.

Can anyone clarify the legal issues here?

AFAIK you are only trespassing if you the property owner tells you to leave and you do not. When you rent an apartment, the building's owners give you the right to invite non-tenants to your building. So could Michel be even considered a trespasser unless the building owners explicitly banned him from the building? He had permission to be in the building from an authorized tenant, so he had permission to enter building through the front door. Is there a legal requirement that he be explicitly let in by the tenant who invited him?

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.

It wasn't based on absolutely nothing. Even the OP admits the thing Michael was doing is a thing that's not supposed to be permissible to some degree, so looking into what that's about isn't unreasonable. Cukor displayed a higher about of vigilance than people expect from the average citizen and the basic assumption is he wouldn't have cared nearly as much if Michael was white? It's not an unreasonable theory either. But even after watching the video a few times I don't see anything based on the context to suggest definite racial prejudice. Just feels like basic human miscommunication viewed through a political lens.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.

It wasn't based on absolutely nothing. Even the OP admits the thing Michael was doing is a thing that's not supposed to be permissible to some degree, so looking into what that's about isn't unreasonable. Cukor displayed a higher about of vigilance than people expect from the average citizen and the basic assumption is he wouldn't have cared nearly as much if Michael was white? It's not an unreasonable theory either. But even after watching the video a few times I don't see anything based on the context to suggest definite racial prejudice. Just feels like basic human miscommunication viewed through a political lens.

Except he wasnt trespassing, he was waiting for his friend who then verified he was allowed to be there.

Racism is alive and well and it only helps racism to pretend otherwise.

Saelune:
Except he wasnt trespassing, he was waiting for his friend who then verified he was allowed to be there.

Racism is alive and well and it only helps racism to pretend otherwise.

And the situation came to a halt upon that realization. As it should.

I don't doubt the existence of racism. I doubt how applicable that characterization fits in this specific context.

ObsidianJones:

I rather be shamed than arrested on a Trumped Up Charge. But that's me.

Again, you're condemning Michel for things Cukor could have done at the door. It might have been more than to it than he thinks. He didn't have to go nuclear. To Michel's perspective and many, many others, though, Cukor didn't give Michel the same benefit of the doubt so many others are asking us to give Cukor and escalated.

I already stated that Michel could have handled the confrontation better. I still believe that. No need to curse in front of a kid. I will never be a fan of him for that. But yes, for people to learn that your fears do not make others have to capitulate so you can feel better, I think Michel had to post it. Because many of us are tired of having to live our lives trying to make others feel better.

But he wasn't arrested now was he? And what trumped up charges? He calmly explained to the police everything that happened. It's not as if he made wild claims like "he forced himself through the door", "he's being violent" and whatnot. And once the friend arrived he stops the involvement with the police. The idea of him being a trespasser was at that poin founded. He entered a building he shouldn't have been able to enter and claimed to do so because he was invited by someone he refused to identify or call up. In the end, Michel has been temporarily and anonymously been suspected of trespassing by two individuals; Cukor and the police officer on the line. Cukor has been shamed and villified publicly for however long the internet wants to. I'd rather have the former than the latter.

Not reasonable questions if it involved divulging information about a third party. A physically disabled person at that.

And cooperation doesn't come in the form of just doing what someone says. It's very important that people understand that. No where in our Constitution does it say that we must, to create a just and functioning republic... give up all the info someone needs so they can feel comfortable. In fact, we have several factors protecting our privacy from others. Even the police.

He wasn't obligated to, correct. And that is why the police was called, so they could resolve the impasse.

So, the problem is that we're going to go with the assumption that would be enough for Cukor. Again, it's going under the mindset that one is reasonable and basically Mr. Rogers while the other one is spiteful for spiteful sakes.

Do we know Cukor's intimate knowledge of the building? Does he know every tenant by name? I live in a community that the townhouses have to be stacked or we would hear everytime one of us sneezes. I see my neighbors all the time.

I haven't a clue what any of their names are.

So it would just stop at the name? If Cukor didn't know that name, would he just be satisfied? Or would he, being the guy that seems very inquisitive to start with, require more information?

You're correct, we don't know how he would have reacted. Just like Cukor didn't know what Michel was up to. What we do know is that Michel refused to alleviate his concerns and even acted in a way that would increase concerns. "Just walk away" is typically not the kind of wording you'd expect from someone who isn't doing anything wrong. In my eyes both acted and reacted poorly in the situation. But yet only one gets to be publicly shamed and villified.

Literally, we don't even know that. For what is clear and undisputed is what's on the video. We don't know how Cukor approached him before Michel started recording.

And that's the point, we only know what we saw. And I don't think what we saw justifies the hate crusade against Cukor.

And it's illegal. It's a fineable offense. And no one calls the cops on anyone who crosses the street on red.

Absolutely the point.

Not at all, the point was that some people are more cautious than others. When you cross the streets when the light is red you're putting yourself into unnecessary danger. When you allow someone into a locked building who shouldn't have been able to access it otherwise you're putting the residents in danger.

Because if you go to another country and you try that, everyone looks at you weird. Again, you take the Mores of your culture and you understand them for what they are. Are the Mores wrong? That's not up to me. That's up to the culture. If we stood up at one and said no more 'tailgating' (I literally didn't know there was a term for that until this story), fine. Mores gone. Everyone who does it now is doing it knowing we as a people consider it a malicious act.

But that hasn't been done. And every day we're having this discussion, another couple of million people in this country alone are doing it without any fear, repercussions, or thought of anything wrong. If you live in that society, you can easily feel if everyone else does it, I can too.

And you can easily feel unjustly prosecuted when you have the cops called on you for doing what everyone else does.

When Broad, Socially Accepted Practices are denied to you, that is inequality. It's as simple as that. Your feelings of it aside, you're talking about a handful of like-minded people (or hell, let's be generous, tens of thousands or even more) such as yourself to literally once again... Millions of people who do it and Millions of people who let them.

Why shouldn't Michel feel unjustly punished when the reality of the society around him is what it is?

Because mores aren't rights. That is why. The mores of crossing the lights when red didn't instantly turn them into legal actions and doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to question your action afterwards. And one should realize that not everyone adopts every single custom that others adopt. That's diversity. You shouldn't always take any unusual event or behavior as something personal. That's best way to develop a victim complex.

And this is the meat of it. Wrong is subjective with the society around you.

It wasn't wrong to beat, rape, and use women as objects before society came together as a whole and said we don't treat humans like that. It wasn't wrong to lynch, lie, and steal from a black person before society came together and said not today, not any more. It wasn't wrong to blackmail a gay person to keep the secret of their homosexuality for if the knowledge of their desires got out, they would be persecuted for the rest of their days. Society recently said we've had enough of that shit.

Once again, I rather be shamed than sent to jail on trumped up charges. You and I might differ on that, and that's a gulf we can't cross if that's the situation.

But no one was jailed based on trumped up charges now was he? And since his story checked out the police would have found that one once on the spot and nothing would have happened. It's not like Cukor fabricated a scenario and evidence.

And yes, what is wrong is subjective. But here's the question, is it wrong to be cautious and question tailgating? It may be annoying, sure, but wrong? The only reason why this scenario was considered wrong is because there was an assumption of racial bias. No one is shaming Cukor for questioning the practice of tailgating, he's being shamed for doing so towards a black person. It's all about the racial element.

Saelune:
So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.

But there was evidence he was trespassing. Entering a building you are not supposed to have been able to enter is evidence of that. Again, Michel had not been given access to the building by any resident at that point, yet he entered it. That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did. You however are not suspecting anyone of anything and are not trying to investigate anything. You just jump to the conclusion Cukor is racist, period. There is a very big nuance here.

generals3:
That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did.

Well, no, it's not really what he did: when he called the cops he claimed Michel was a trespasser. He did not have proof (or even really reasonable grounds for such an assumption) but he stated it as fact to the authorities.

generals3:

Saelune:
So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.

But there was evidence he was trespassing. Entering a building you are not supposed to have been able to enter is evidence of that. Again, Michel had not been given access to the building by any resident at that point, yet he entered it. That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did. You however are not suspecting anyone of anything and are not trying to investigate anything. You just jump to the conclusion Cukor is racist, period. There is a very big nuance here.

But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.

Saelune:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.

Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.

Silvanus:

generals3:
That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did.

Well, no, it's not really what he did: when he called the cops he claimed Michel was a trespasser. He did not have proof (or even really reasonable grounds for such an assumption) but he stated it as fact to the authorities.

Well yes you're right, he forgot to say "i suspect him to be...". But afterwards he describes the situation objectively; he said he was tailgating, he claimed to be invited by a friend but refused to buzz that person or even just give the name of the resident inviting him. He didn't just leave it at "There is a black trespasser here, send some help!"

generals3:

Saelune:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.

Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.

You. You were wrong. Stop digging your hole.

Saelune:
You. You were wrong. Stop digging your hole.

How so? The only person making strong allegations here is you. Is this an attempt to deflect the discussion from your own prejudices and how it affects the way you look at things and instantly judge people based on a 3min video?

generals3:

Saelune:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.

Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.

However, Michel WAS supposed to be able to enter the building because he was an invited guest of the tenant. He might not have a key to unlock the front door but there was nothing legally or ethically preventing him from crossing the threshold. The other guy made an incorrect assumption and then jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on no real evidence and tried to justify his actions on the basis of not being able to obtain more evidence.

ASIDE: From System Design viewpoint (my specialty) the door buzzer system is an extremely weak security system with a ton of built-in ambiguities that make this type of situation a regular occurrence. This leads to one citizen violating another citizen's rights in order to achieve some extra security.

Nielas:

However, Michel WAS supposed to be able to enter the building because he was an invited guest of the tenant. He might not have a key to unlock the front door but there was nothing legally or ethically preventing him from crossing the threshold. The other guy made an incorrect assumption and then jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on no real evidence and tried to justify his actions on the basis of not being able to obtain more evidence.

ASIDE: From System Design viewpoint (my specialty) the door buzzer system is an extremely weak security system with a ton of built-in ambiguities that make this type of situation a regular occurrence. This leads to one citizen violating another citizen's rights in order to achieve some extra security.

No he was not. To have access he would have had to use a key or get buzzed in by the person inviting him. The fact someone invites you doesn't mean you are able to access the building. The resident has to enable that access by either giving you a key or unlocking the door. Here the person who unlocked the door was someone who didn't invite him and had no obligation whatsoever to open the door for Michel. What Michel did is force Cukor to be the one to have given him access to the building by tailgating. Now to be clear, it's something people do all the time, but something Cukor didn't feel comfortable with as he didn't know Michel.

And let's not forget that the only thing Cukor asked for was Michel to enter the "right way"; by buzzing his friend. Something he would have had to do had Cukor not inadvertently allowed him in by leaving the building. When you go as far as refusing to do what you should have done anyway you're not helping your case. I can understand that due to the custom of overlooking tailgating in appartment complexes you might be annoyed by having to do that but it is nothing unreasonable to expect. After all it is what he would have needed to do had Cukor not left the building at that moment.

generals3:
But he wasn't arrested now was he? And what trumped up charges? He calmly explained to the police everything that happened. It's not as if he made wild claims like "he forced himself through the door", "he's being violent" and whatnot. And once the friend arrived he stops the involvement with the police. The idea of him being a trespasser was at that poin founded. He entered a building he shouldn't have been able to enter and claimed to do so because he was invited by someone he refused to identify or call up. In the end, Michel has been temporarily and anonymously been suspected of trespassing by two individuals; Cukor and the police officer on the line. Cukor has been shamed and villified publicly for however long the internet wants to. I'd rather have the former than the latter.

I feel this is coming close to the end of our dance. We're going back around the same topics and there seems to be no budging.

I'll say my part, you can say a follow up. Let's then Tip Hats and Walk Away Like Gentlemen.

It's not so much that Michel wasn't arrested. It was Michel wasn't arrested... not due from a lack of trying.

Here's how I would have done it. If it were me.

"I have this gentlemen who I'm not sure of trying to enter the apartment building of where I live. He does not want to answer me, but can you send an officer here just to check everything out? He has not done any violence, but he did tailgate me into the building and that made me uncomfortable".

Two things. I felt like a dick even typing that out is number one. Number two is that method is an infinitely better way of expressing the situation in a manner that the police are informed and I didn't just make the other party into a criminal.

Because as much as people want to defend it, that is the biggest problem of the call. The thing that sticks into everyone's craw. We all agree that Michel wasn't a Trespasser even though Cukor didn't know it at the time. Fine. Cukor has a right to be suspicious. We all agree on that as well. But when he calls 911, he becomes a witness. That's why you have to do follow ups with the people who call 911 and get their account on the situation at hand.

That's why calling him a 'Trespasser' is what takes this from a misunderstanding to "You dick, think about your own actions".

A little story from my life. I used to work out at New York Sports Club. One night I needed some water after I left the gym, so I pulled in front of a Townhouse where some girls were just talking the night away. I parked the car, walked up to the corner and turned it. That's when I saw a latino man bloodied carried by two of his friends (also latino) walking towards me. They were all bloody to and banged up.

That was clue number one I shouldn't get water today. I immediately turned and headed by to my car. At that time, the police showed up. And I was like 'great, situation handled'. But I still didn't want to be here.

And that's when it happened. One of those girls chatting away when I pulled up pointed to me and yelled "HIM TOO! HE'S ONE OF THEM!".

Like I explained, I had to turn the corner to go to the store where the fight supposedly happened. These women either saw me pull up and park just a second ago, or they didn't see me (and definitely not the fight unless they could see through their own south-facing building and through the west-facing one on the corner street) at all. Whatever the case, they had no business even acknowledging my presence, let alone accuse me of anything.

Also? The latino men spoke not a word of english. I took German in high school. The Police officer who spoke spanish asked if I was with them, and apparently they said "No, he's just some guy". But because a person not involved with the situation accused me, the Police had to take down my information, my license, and my number and say "Look, I'm sorry, but there has been a complaint filed against you. These guys says they don't know you, but we have to check with the store manager and see anyone matching your description was apart of the fight."

I had to stand next to my car for thirty minutes. The girls up at the townhouse were laughing at me like "oops, bwhahaha". Another cop is seeing me seethe and he's trying to ignore it.

The original cop comes back and says the store owner only saw two groups of latino men fighting. But because of the 'Witnesses', they need to do some more digging to make sure I'm not involved. I'm allowed to go back home because they really had nothing to keep me on, but I get three calls from the police in a two week period. Two to state my version of the facts again, and a third final one saying they found video of the incident from a Laundromat across the street baring out that I was telling the truth.

But because of 'Witnesses' said I was apart of the fight, I was apart of the fight. Doesn't matter if I couldn't communicate with the actual fighters. Doesn't matter if the 'witnesses' couldn't even see the fight in question. I was linked to it by hearsay.

I could have been arrested that night if the cops who were called didn't want to do actual police work. When I was standing with the cops, the rookie (horribly) whispers to his superior "Do we take the black guy in? Those girls said he was fighting"... Even though I didn't have a scratch or an ounce of blood on me, like every other person involved in the fight. But it was enough that I was going to be arrested if his superior just didn't want to more work than usual that day.

And literally, that's a roll of the dice every person faces when the cops are involved. And yes, as we've seen, more so with black males than other groups of people.

I have no patience for someone who bares false witness to slant the police to his side before they even get a chance to get on the scene. I don't care if he's vilified on social media if he's done something to be considered a villain to me. And no, it's not the white and black thing, per se. It's actually a sad sidebar to it, because the ramifications that came with it.

Police are humans and they come to a situation with whatever they were presented. If they had to hash out a misunderstanding and are told so, they come in to be mediators. If they are called to deal with a criminal, they don't come to mediate. They come to remove a threat to the public. Cukor declared Michel a criminal. Whether or not if Michel was arrested therefore becomes irrelevant. Cukor came with villainous intent, therefore my heart doesn't bleed for him if he suffers those slings and arrows.

generals3:

Saelune:
You. You were wrong. Stop digging your hole.

How so? The only person making strong allegations here is you. Is this an attempt to deflect the discussion from your own prejudices and how it affects the way you look at things and instantly judge people based on a 3min video?

Are you responding to yourself now? Cause I should be saying this to you. You're the one doing the thing you just now are accusing me of.

ObsidianJones:

A little story from my life....

I wasn't going to share my story, but won't make you stand out there by yourself:

Back in the early 2000s, I was a second shift supervisor for a furniture warehouse. Every night around 11pm, my final duty was to lock the building down and set the alarm. I did so one night, as I had hundreds of others before it, and started driving home when, less than a block from my building, I was pulled over by a cop.

The female cop approached my window and did the stock "license, registration, do you know why I pulled you over" shtick; I provided the documents requested and confessed that I did not know why I was pulled over; she told me I had a taillight out. Fair enough; I'm never back there when I'm driving, so I was unaware it was out.

She then asked me what I was doing out so late; I told her I was on my way home from work. She then asked where I worked. The line of questioning seemed wholly unnecessary seeing as I'd admitted my "guilt" and my record had come back clean, but she was a cop, so I complied; I told her I was a supervisor at that warehouse right there [pointed to my building] to which she replied with a cynically and insultingly incredulous "YOU'RE a supervisor?" I assured her that yes, I was a supervisor there and could indeed show her as I'd keys to the building and the security codes.

She waved my reassurance of her "doubt" away and started shining her flashlight into my window scanning through the back seat and passenger seat. "Got any weapons or drugs," she asked. So now I've gone from offended to humiliated to nervous; I had no idea why she was so seemingly suspicious, but I again assured that no, I had neither weapons nor drugs. Then her flashlight fell on a bright orange safety box cutter in my console, one of the many dozens found throughout my warehouse. "What's that," she asked. I told her it was a box cutter from work. "I thought you said you didn't' have any weapons?" Now, I'm scared. I told her I didn't think of it as a "weapon;" I thought she meant "guns" or something, but she'd heard enough.

I was instructed to get out of my vehicle where I was placed in handcuffs and set in the back seat of her police car. Soon after, another cop car pulled up and she and this new officer proceeded to literally strip my vehicle, taking everything out of the dash, backset and even the TRUNK (they took out my spare tire, for chrissake) and throwing it on the ground outside in search of something, ANYTHING, incriminating.

After a good 15-20 minutes, they decided I didn't have anything. The female officer uncuffed me and told me I could leave under strict advisement to get my taillight fixed ASAP. She and the other officer then jumped in their respective vehicles and drove away leaving me on the side of the road, in the dark, alone, to put everything they'd ripped out of my car back in place.

And those were the COPS harassing me over a spent taillight, one of a hundreds you'll see any given day. And why was I out "so late?" Yes, 11pm is fairly late by most standards, but given my hours, it was basically my "6pm" and last I checked, Americans don't have a curfew. Ok, yes, a box cutter could technically be used as a weapon, but seeing as Home Depot sells them to any and everyone without so much as batting an eyelash, I doubt most reasonable people would consider it a "weapon," least of all a cop with a gun. (And by her logic, I guess I had drugs too, a bottle of Tylenol I kept in my armrest.)

Granted, this is the most extreme case of overt profiling that happened to me, but in my near 40 years of life, I can't count the number of times I've been singled out where the only discernable difference between me and anyone else in a similar (if not same) situation was the color of my skin and the stigma attached to it.

tstorm823:

Empathy does not require you to have a shared experience with someone. Projecting your personal hardships onto a different person in a different place is not making you more understanding of the person filming, it's making you less understanding of the person being filmed. If you don't want to understand a perspective that you don't personally share, I guess that's your prerogative, but that's not anyone's fault but your own.

Empathy has nothing to do with it; I'm projecting nothing; my "fault" is recognizing patterns of behavior in people of privileged positions, be that wealth, power, standing, etc., expecting those they feel are lesser than them to bend the knee, whether that be an actual authority demanding [you] get down on your stomach with hands behind you back for no other reason than "suspicion," or some "concerned citizen" politely demanding for personal information that amounts to "what are you doing here?" You or anyone can advocate whichever position you see fit; you can draw your own lines of reasonability wherever you see fit, but in my case, as a black man in America, I've seen enough ducks to know that if it looks, walks and talks like one, it probably IS one.

ObsidionJones and I are but two examples and won't claim to be indicative of every individual like us, but we've both experienced and seen enough, and likely know many people like ourselves who've similar experiences, that the benefit of the doubt some of you are asking we allow in cases like this is too high a price, dignity being a huge part of that price. Can anyone honestly imagine this video with Michel replaced with a cute white girl? I can, but it's a lot shorter and ends with Cukor, holding the door as she passes through, completely unbidden for anything save for Cukor's tacit instinctive plea for approval from the fairer sex.

Xprimentyl:

ObsidianJones:

A little story from my life?.

I wasn?t going to share my story, but won?t make you stand out there by yourself:

Back in the early 2000s, I was a second shift supervisor for a furniture warehouse. Every night around 11pm, my final duty was to lock the building down and set the alarm. I did so one night, as I had hundreds of others before it, and started driving home when, less than a block from my building, I was pulled over by a cop.

The female cop approached my window and did the stock ?license, registration, do you know why I pulled you over? shtick; I provided the documents requested and confessed that I did not know why I was pulled over; she told me I had a taillight out. Fair enough; I?m never back there when I?m driving, so I was unaware it was out.

She then asked me what I was doing out so late; I told her I was on my way home from work. She then asked where I worked. The line of questioning seemed wholly unnecessary seeing as I?d admitted my ?guilt? and my record had come back clean, but she was a cop, so I complied; I told her I was a supervisor at that warehouse right there [pointed to my building] to which she replied with a cynically and insultingly incredulous ?YOU?RE a supervisor?? I assured her that yes, I was a supervisor there and could indeed show her as I?d keys to the building and the security codes.

She waved my reassurance of her ?doubt? away and started shining her flashlight into my window scanning through the back seat and passenger seat. ?Got any weapons or drugs,? she asked. So now I?ve gone from offended to humiliated to nervous; I had no idea why she was so seemingly suspicious, but I again assured that no, I had neither weapons nor drugs. Then her flashlight fell on a bright orange safety box cutter in my console, one of the many dozens found throughout my warehouse. ?What?s that,? she asked. I told her it was a box cutter from work. ?I thought you said you didn?t? have any weapons?? Now, I?m scared. I told her I didn?t think of it as a ?weapon;? I thought she meant ?guns? or something, but she?d heard enough.

I was instructed to get out of my vehicle where I was placed in handcuffs and set in the back seat of her police car. Soon after, another cop car pulled up and she and this new officer proceeded to literally strip my vehicle, taking everything out of the dash, backset and even the TRUNK (they took out my spare tire, for chrissake) and throwing it on the ground outside in search of something, ANYTHING, incriminating.

After a good 15-20 minutes, they decided I didn?t have anything. The female officer uncuffed me and told me I could leave under strict advisement to get my taillight fixed ASAP. She and the other officer then jumped in their respective vehicles and drove away leaving me on the side of the road, in the dark, alone, to put everything they?d ripped out of my car back in place.

And those were the COPS harassing me over a spent taillight, one of a hundreds you?ll see any given day. And why was I out ?so late?? Yes, 11pm is fairly late by most standards, but given my hours, it was basically my ?6pm? and last I checked, Americans don?t have a curfew. Ok, yes, a box cutter could technically be used as a weapon, but seeing as Home Depot sells them to any and everyone without so much as batting an eyelash, I doubt most reasonable people would consider it a ?weapon,? least of all a cop with a gun. (And by her logic, I guess I had drugs too, a bottle of Tylenol I kept in my armrest.)

Granted, this is the most extreme case of overt profiling that happened to me, but in my near 40 years of life, I can?t count the number of times I?ve been singled out where the only discernable difference between me and anyone else in a similar (if not same) situation was the color of my skin and the stigma attached to it.

tstorm823:

Empathy does not require you to have a shared experience with someone. Projecting your personal hardships onto a different person in a different place is not making you more understanding of the person filming, it's making you less understanding of the person being filmed. If you don't want to understand a perspective that you don't personally share, I guess that's your prerogative, but that's not anyone's fault but your own.

Empathy has nothing to do with it; I?m projecting nothing; my ?fault? is recognizing patterns of behavior in people of privileged positions, be that wealth, power, standing, etc., expecting those they feel are lesser than them to bend the knee, whether that be an actual authority demanding [you] get down on your stomach with hands behind you back for no other reason than ?suspicion,? or some ?concerned citizen? politely demanding for personal information that amounts to ?what are you doing here?? You or anyone can advocate whichever position you see fit; you can draw your own lines of reasonability wherever you see fit, but in my case, as a black man in America, I?ve seen enough ducks to know that if it looks, walks and talks like one, it probably IS one.

ObsidionJones and I are but two examples and won?t claim to be indicative of every individual like us, but we?ve both experienced and seen enough, and likely know many people like ourselves who?ve similar experiences, that the benefit of the doubt some of you are asking we allow in cases like this is too high a price, dignity being a huge part of that price. Can anyone honestly imagine this video with Michel replaced with a cute white girl? I can, but it?s a lot shorter and ends with Cukor, holding the door as she passes through, completely unbidden for anything save for Cukor?s tacit instinctive plea for approval from the fairer sex.

They broke the law, overstepped their authority, and even if you pushed to punish them for it, the legal system would rule in their favor even though they had no right to do what they did to you.

The police are guilty until proven innocent.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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