Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > "_____" while black

"_____" while black (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2020, 12:52 PM
 
👌
...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2020, 12:54 PM
 
Staying silent on the hundreds of cases and hundreds of years of violence, then only choosing to speak up at times like this says a lot about you.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2020, 01:17 PM
 
I saw a video of a white guy pulled over, who wouldn't lie down when told, pushed the cop down, got tazed, chased the cop around, got in the cop car, got back in his car, did loops around the plaza, crashed into the cop car... and was still arrested alive.

White people don't get killed when they do crazy shit.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2020, 01:47 PM
 
I have mixed feelings on the drive-up shooting after watching the video. And it's unhelpful the video cut away without letting us see the shots.
  • The cops sounded reasonable during the conversations.
  • Customer could have driven away, but fell asleep a 2nd time.
  • More questions and a sobriety test. We don't see the blood-alcohol reading.
  • Apparently reading is too high, so customer is to be arrested. Probably to the drunk tank for the night. It can't be a DUI because no cop saw him driving. He wasn't driving when he should be, and SUI (Sleeping Under Influence) is not illegal.
  • Customer fights arrest, hitting both cops, and leaving one on the ground.
  • Customer grabs one taser, and runs, chased by one cop. Taser is bright yellow, impossible to mistake for a real gun. 2nd cop gets off the ground, but 1st cop doesn't see it.
  • Customer appears to try and fire the taser at chasing cop. Who may think his buddy is still down. I saw a flash or puff from the taser suggesting it was fired. Distance to chasing cop looks like 10ft or less (3 meter) within a taser's range.
  • (camera cuts away to spare our delicate eyes, to the audio on one of the body cams. video not useful.)
  • I heard three shots. I think from the gun, and not the taser.
  • Coroner's report says customer died of two shots to the back.

My guess: all 3 shots heard were from the cop, and the first shot missed. The shots that hit did so after customer had tried to fire the taser, and turned back to running. So they came after the camera cut away.
2nd guess: customer had points on his license, and feared a DUI arrest would suspend his license.

The customer isn't blameless, and a cop will likely be more protective when his buddy is on the ground. Or he thinks buddy was still down.
Was lethal force justified? The stolen taser was from the 2nd cop - chasing cop still had his taser, a nonlethal option.

I'm on the fence about this one. I might agree about firing the chasing cop, but it should have happened after a review. Including of the withheld video footage of the actual shots. I understand why he was fired immediately and the police chief resigned. The mayor has a responsibility to keep the city stable.

The 2nd cop has been suspended pending review, and I expect him to be reinstated. He didn't do anything wrong, and I don't see anything he could have done to change the outcome.

note: the Wendy's burning down is separate. Wendy's did nothing wrong, and it appears the protesters did not burn it.
On Sunday police offered a $10,000 reward and published photos of what appeared to be a masked white woman being sought in connection with the fire.

Police said they were seeking those responsible for the blaze, including a woman who was “attempting to hide her identity”. The department posted photos on social media of what looked to be a young white woman wearing a black baseball cap and face mask, and a video clip filmed by a protester that appeared to show a woman encouraging the flames.

“Look at the white girl trying to burn down the Wendy’s,” the man recording the video can be heard saying. “This wasn’t us.”
We won't know for sure until / unless the mystery woman is caught. I suspect an agitator trying to make protesters look bad. But she could also be a protester. Insufficient data.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 12:01 AM
 
^^^

Not on the fence at all about this one. The cop KNEW he had a taser. So he knew it was a non-lethal weapon in the hands of fleeing suspect not trained to use it and (presumably) inebriated. Yet the "officer" shot him twice in the back nonetheless.

OAW
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 12:51 AM
 
Definitely on the fence.

Suspect punched two officers, dragging them to the ground. Then aimed a weapon back at them while running, and seemingly fired. If so, he fired first.

I'm white, and I'd be terrified to do either one. Let alone both in quick succession. Suspect actually attacked the cops, apparently twice.

Three shots in return may be excessive, or use of gun instead of taser. But this isn't clear-cut guilt on the officer's part vs innocence. I'll criticize cops when they get it wrong. In this case, the suspect definitely provoked them. Hard. I'm not happy with either side of the story.
( Last edited by reader50; Jun 16, 2020 at 01:04 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 01:32 AM
 
@reader
IMHO you are starting your analysis when things have already gone wrong. To make an analogy, if you remember the shooting of Tamir Rice, I would say it is as if you start your analysis from the moment when the cops have already pulled up very close to the young boy and have forced themselves into a corner. Another approach could have avoided the confrontation altogether.

The same is true here: the onus is on the professionals, the cops, not the civilians. To deal with a suspected drunk, you don't need tasers or guns. People who are intoxicated (and whom you have woken up just recently) don't make the best of decisions. If you have ever had to deal with a drunk, you know what I mean. As a LEO your duty is to not just protect other people from the drunk person, but also the drunk person himself.

The thinking should be: what could the LEOs have done differently to avoid this death. Is shooting someone who has tasered your partner and is running away on foot (still drunk, by the way) someone who can't be caught otherwise? Could it have been avoided that the man who was killed took the taser in the first place? Could the cops have deescalated the situation in other ways? For instance, what was their purpose in their minds when arriving at the scene? Could they have driven the victim home, for example? (I don't know US traffic laws, but if you are sleeping in your car while intoxicated, is that a crime?)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 02:24 AM
 
It varies by jurisdiction. Illinois law for example is very strict.

Here, the driver only needs to be in a car, and have access to the keys. So, even if the car is off and the keys are in the back seat, it’s still a DUI.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It varies by jurisdiction. Illinois law for example is very strict.

Here, the driver only needs to be in a car, and have access to the keys. So, even if the car is off and the keys are in the back seat, it’s still a DUI.
Thanks for the information. That seems like a law that should be changed IMHO, as long as you are parked and are sleeping off your booze, you are not endangering anyone in my mind. Especially if you have no other way to get home, this really lends itself to being a law that can become punitive.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 03:11 AM
 
I can kinda sorta see where that law is coming from, but, yeah... I personally think the driver should have to display intent.

In this situation however, since he was asleep in the drive-thru lane, I’m guessing he’d be screwed anywhere in the country.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can kinda sorta see where that law is coming from, but, yeah... I personally think the driver should have to display intent.

In this situation however, since he was asleep in the drive-thru lane, I’m guessing he’d be screwed anywhere in the country.
I understand that point.
I'd rather give positive nudges in the right direction than punitive ones if there is no danger to society.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 06:35 AM
 
I did a quick scan of the law and I guess it’s sorta reasonable.

The idea is it’s up to a judge or jury whether the driver has “actual physical control” of the vehicle. So the more steps the driver takes not to be in actual physical control, the more likely they’ll be let off.

This squares with what I was taught, which was to put the keys in the trunk. This is better than the back seat, but back seat is better than the front passenger seat, which is better than in the ignition.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 10:22 AM
 
The law is probably written that way because too many drunks see a cop car, stop, and toss the keys in the back seat so they can claim not to be driving. But it does seem punative for the drunk who decides to just wait in their car until they sober up.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 04:45 PM
 
In the UK the cops just check the bonnet (hood) to see if the engine is warm. If it is, they'll have you anyway. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that America cops don't do this trick though. Probably just shoot you instead.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 04:59 PM
 
I’m curious how the UK came about their drunk driving laws.

What I mean specifically is in America we had this 0-60 thing where not even the littlest shit was given about driving under the influence and then it flipped to the greatest evil ever almost overnight. This was when I was a teenager.

I’ve heard more than one boomer say “you wouldn’t believe what we used to get away with”. I know people who got pulled over drunk and had the cops drive them home.

I’ve always wondered if this was involved in our rather draconian laws about it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2020, 08:59 PM
 
I'm not sure tbh. We had such laws before I was born on paper at least. In the countryside, drink-driving was rife up until maybe twenty five years ago or so. I expect in certain places there is still a lot of it going on, where there aren't many people and virtually no cops for miles. That said there's probably fewer pubs around now than back then so maybe not.

Ours have gotten more and more strictly enforced in my lifetime. We used to get ad campaigns particularly leading up to Christmas. Some of the more successful ones seemed to really galvanise public support for stricter enforcement. I don't know if the cops ever had quotas like they do now with speeding tickets and other violations but they did step up patrols in areas where people knew they could get away with it. Or thought they could.

As much as they did step up catching and punishing people, the one thing they never seem to have addressed properly is sentencing. Our sentencing seems to be wildly inconsistent at the best of times across the board but I recall an awful case where a driver who was 3 times the legal limit or something like left the road in broad daylight, ploughed into a family stood waiting to cross. If I recall correctly, he killed one little girl and her mother and left her sister without her legs. Absolutely horrific. I have a feeling his sentence was 3 years at the most. Which means he probably got out in 18 months or so. The dumbest part of our sentences is they throw in a driving ban with the custodial sentence but it always expires while they're in prison.

I do understand that there's a point of drunkenness where you forget that you aren't allowed to drive or that you shouldn't drive, but despite this I'm very much in favour of much harsher punishments. Just because you didn't kill anyone this time, doesn't mean you should get a slap on the wrist. Its worse than driving without tax or insurance or even a license. I'd favour a two strike rule where the first time you get caught, you get plenty of penalty points on your license and a big fat fine. £1000 at least and a lengthy ban. 2 years or more. Second time you get a bigger fine and your car is confiscated. Not impounded, its taken from you and auctioned off on top of your fine. If it wasn't your car, you owe the owner a new car. You also get banned from driving forever. If you get caught again even bigger fine, car taken again and you get a jail term. 5 years. If you actually hurt anyone or damage anything but your own vehicle on any of these occasions its far far worse.
I cannot understand why the law doesn't treat it as seriously as it should. A car in the wrong hands is a very deadly weapon.

Dreadful sound quality but this was a really popular ad once upon a time, despite the fact it got banned a couple of days after they started showing it. It was only shown after midnight I think and still it got banned because a handful of complete morons complained it had a rude word in it.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 12:22 AM
 
That's a different version of Leary's song, never heard that one.

In 1980 began the Mothers against Drunk Driving campaign, when a 13yr old was hit by a drunk driver.
https://www.madd.org/history/

After this there were new laws, and I recall high school lockdown after-prom parties and designated drivers, etc.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 01:34 PM
 
I had totally forgotten about the *ADD part of it.

@War, excellent post! Thank you!
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 01:35 PM
 
when I was a teen drink driving was if not cool then at least somewhat acceptable. People still said "I drive better with a few inside me" and people kind of tacitly went with it.
At some point that switched and society pretty much decided that if you had a drink and drove your were an asshole. That had more effect than enforcement I would imagine although for a few Christmas's the police went in pretty heavy handed.
Regarding keys, my understanding is that here if you have the keys on you or within reach or even in the car anywhere you are drunk in charge of an automobile. You can sleep it off in your car but you had better leave the keys a good distance away and you better not have a warm engine.

When I lived in Cape Town in the early 90s they really firmly believed that alcohol was actually miracle drive better juice and the roads where literally littered with overturned cars and cars smashed though and into things on Saturday, Sunday morning. The free way around Groote Schuur hospital was particularly interesting given it had sharp bends and massive drops. Pretty much Darwins favourite road.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 01:44 PM
 
I’m not going to say I drive better with a few in me, but I’m definitely paying attention more than would otherwise. If I’m sober I’m usually on autopilot.

Probably haven’t done it in 20 years, though.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
when I was a teen drink driving was if not cool then at least somewhat acceptable. People still said "I drive better with a few inside me" and people kind of tacitly went with it.
At some point that switched and society pretty much decided that if you had a drink and drove your were an asshole. That had more effect than enforcement I would imagine although for a few Christmas's the police went in pretty heavy handed.
Regarding keys, my understanding is that here if you have the keys on you or within reach or even in the car anywhere you are drunk in charge of an automobile. You can sleep it off in your car but you had better leave the keys a good distance away and you better not have a warm engine.
I think my peers all had it very much drummed into us that drinking and driving was very, very bad. And not cool at all.

I think you're right, our cops can get you for some genuinely preposterous circumstances if they want to. Its bonkers really, if I go out to my yard to grab something from my car and I've had a few beers, they could charge me for that. Utterly draconian. Luckily our cops are not like yours and do not do this. Unless you give them shit maybe. If your engine is cold, I think they'll let you off. If you're in the back seat, they'll probably let you off. I'm sure they'd let me off for getting something out of my car of an evening. Not that they'd even bother asking what I was up to. Or be there to see me do it in the first place. Haven't seen a cop after dark in my village since I was a teenager.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

@War, excellent post! Thank you!
My pleasure!
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 04:13 PM
 
Garrett Rolfe, the Atlanta police officer who shot Rayshard Brooks outside a Wendy's, was involved in a shooting in 2015.
In August 2015, Rolfe and two other officers opened fire on Jackie Jermaine Harris, who they chased after he was caught driving a stolen truck, the Guardian can reveal after reviewing court documents on the incident.

However, the shooting was not reported by the police involved. Harris, like Brooks, is African American.

Harris rammed a police vehicle and officers shot at him several times inside the truck, striking Harris once and collapsing his lung. Harris survived and later pleaded guilty to charges including theft, property damage, fleeing arrest and damaging a police vehicle.

Judge Doris L Downs, during a 2016 court hearing, called the case a “disaster” and said “it’s the wildest case I’ve seen in my 34 years here.”

Downs said she was so troubled by officers failing to report the shooting that she wanted the matter investigated.

“None of the police put in the report that they shot the man – none of them. And they sent him to Grady [Memorial Hospital] with collapsed lungs and everything, and the report doesn’t mention it,” Downs said.
The shooting part doesn't get me worked up, because that suspect rammed a police car with a stolen truck. If you attack the cops, they can shoot back.

What gets me is the same thing that got the judge: the coverup. The 3 officers reported the suspect was injured, but forgot to mention they'd shot him. Records today show Rolfe (and presumably the other two officers) were not disciplined for falsifying reports. The Atlanta PD definitely needs some investigating, about lack of accountability for officers. Especially after a judge reported the matter. Who decided to support the officers' coverups?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Who decided to support the officers' coverups?
Every city official who knows how much grief the police union can bring down on their lives for not supporting “law-n-order”?
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 07:43 PM
 
Garrett Rolfe has been charged, along with his buddy. The key evidence was the stun gun taken was non-functional, plus actions that happened after the public video cut off.
[District Attorney] Howard revealed that Rolfe knew the taser Brooks took from him was not functional, as it had already been fired twice and thus was of no use when he shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away.

The detail underscores that Rolfe was apparently aware he was in no physical danger when he fatally shot Brooks. Cameras also captured Rolfe kicking Brooks as he was on the ground struggling for his life.

“I got him!” the district attorney quoted Rolfe as saying.

The felony murder charge against Rolfe carries life in prison or the death penalty, if prosecutors choose to seek it. Howard recommended that Rolfe be held without bond.

Devin Brosnan, the other Atlanta police officer involved in the killing, is facing three charges, including aggravated assault and violation of oath. The aggravated assault charge is in connection to Brosnan standing on Brooks’ shoulders after he was shot by officer Rolfe.
I'm confused on the taser info. The officer chasing Brooks initially had a yellow taser in hand, and had another yellow item on the back of his belt. Which is why I assumed Brooks had take the taser from the 2nd cop. So either the chasing cop initially had 2-3 tasers, or Rolfe was the 2nd cop, shooting from much farther back.

The firing now makes sense, though based on info we weren't told before today.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2020, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Garrett Rolfe, the Atlanta police officer who shot Rayshard Brooks outside a Wendy's, was involved in a shooting in 2015.

The shooting part doesn't get me worked up, because that suspect rammed a police car with a stolen truck. If you attack the cops, they can shoot back.

What gets me is the same thing that got the judge: the coverup. The 3 officers reported the suspect was injured, but forgot to mention they'd shot him. Records today show Rolfe (and presumably the other two officers) were not disciplined for falsifying reports.
That’s the problem: you don’t believe them even when they might be telling the truth. I don’t know the circumstances of the fatal shooting in 2015 (I haven’t read the article), but unless there is additional evidence, I think it is quite fair to be skeptical of how the cops’s accounts. Nevertheless, at the very least, they should have been charged with misconduct or obstruction of justice (I’m not a lawyer obviously, but lying on an official police report should be a crime, me thinks).

This kind of behavior seems quite universal amongst cops. A former neighbor of ours was a cop, and without even thinking he told us stories of what happened when e. g. they caught some teenagers who had taken a joyride in a car. “First, they got a beating so that they remember to never do it again.” Strangely enough, I heard a version of the exact same story from another old-timer in a very different city. Also he had no qualms telling it to other non-cops even. While Germany has a much lower level of police violence, the psychological mechanisms seem quite similar.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The Atlanta PD definitely needs some investigating, about lack of accountability for officers. Especially after a judge reported the matter. Who decided to support the officers' coverups?
Everyone, I guess. You can’t get away with such obvious lies unless others accept being lied to — or support the other person outright.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2020, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Garrett Rolfe has been charged, along with his buddy. The key evidence was the stun gun taken was non-functional, plus actions that happened after the public video cut off.

I'm confused on the taser info. The officer chasing Brooks initially had a yellow taser in hand, and had another yellow item on the back of his belt. Which is why I assumed Brooks had take the taser from the 2nd cop. So either the chasing cop initially had 2-3 tasers, or Rolfe was the 2nd cop, shooting from much farther back.

The firing now makes sense, though based on info we weren't told before today.
I feel the larger question posed by this is whether the charges were appropriate. Obviously, jurisdictions vary, but seeing as how the maximum penalty for Chauvin is 40 years, that Rolfe is potentially facing execution doesn’t reconcile with the respective events.

Likewise, I don’t understand the DA’s focus on Brooks‘ behavior before he escalated. To me, whatever intent that shows got thrown out the window once Brooks started throwing punches.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2020, 05:33 PM
 
Today, a grand jury handed down felony murder indictments against the three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2020, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel the larger question posed by this is whether the charges were appropriate. Obviously, jurisdictions vary, but seeing as how the maximum penalty for Chauvin is 40 years, that Rolfe is potentially facing execution doesn’t reconcile with the respective events.
IMHO the problem is not whether the charges are appropriate, but rather that penalties in the US are waaaay too long. Offenders of color (on average) don't get this consideration, quite the contrary.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Likewise, I don’t understand the DA’s focus on Brooks‘ behavior before he escalated. To me, whatever intent that shows got thrown out the window once Brooks started throwing punches.
Also here, IMHO the problem is systematic, the response of cops first and foremost, but with unnecessary and unequally applied stand-your-ground laws need not be proportionate to the danger someone is in. And the cops are partly responsible for the escalation: they are the professionals, their reasoning is not impaired and when you are dealing with someone who is intoxicated, as a cop you need to be smart and keep everyone safe.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2020, 11:33 PM
 
That sentences are too long in general is an easy sell for me, but the question of the discrepancy between Chauvin and Rolfe still remains.

I’m kinda lost with the second paragraph.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 01:17 PM
 
Building a patio on your own property while black. And suddenly "Permit Karen" gets in your business.

Video here.

Maybe it really is time we stop giving white people who seek to weaponize the police against Black people cutesy little nicknames like “BBQ Becky” or “Central Park Karen.” Perhaps it’s time for more fitting monikers like “Terrorist Tammy” or “Killer by Police Kathy.”

In Montclair, N.J., a white woman has been dubbed “Permit Karen” after she confronted her Black neighbors to question them about whether they had a permit to build a patio on their own property. This, of course, caused a heated argument between the Black husband and wife and the white woman who apparently suffers from the common Caucasian condition of being allergic to minding her own business. At some point during the argument, the white woman accuses the Black man of pushing her and she calls the police. That’s where the video starts.

In a Facebook Live video posted Monday, the Black neighbor—identified as Fareed Nassor Hayat—included a lengthy caption where he denies putting his hands on the woman and said all he did was ask her to leave.

“It has happened again,” Hayat wrote. “White entitlement and Black hate embodied in Susan who lives on Marion Road and works at the EPA, called the police to lodge a false report of assault against me when told to leave our property. Susan, aka ‘Permit Karen,’ came onto our property three times within thirty minutes to demand to know if we had the proper permit to install a stone patio in our backyard, on the other side of the fence of her yard. When asked if a permit was required by law, she said she didn’t know, but insisted we answer her questions and submit to her demands, or she would call the police to force us to stop improving our home.”

Hayat goes on to say that he and his wife did the research, consulted with their contractor and “verified when building and safety arrived” that they did not need a permit to build “a stone patio this size” on their property.

First, let’s just acknowledge the degree of caucasity on display here…

If this white woman doesn’t even know whether or not a permit is required, why the f*ck is Public Menace Patty out here policing her neighbors in the first place? Why are white people so often convinced that it’s their job to act as officers of the law when they are not officers at all? And then, when their self-proclaimed authority is rejected, they call actual police to do their dirty work.

Fortunately, several of the Black couple’s neighbors can be seen in the video coming to their defense and denouncing Walking Hate Crime Wendy as the racist harasser that she is.


“In this climate right now you are, especially, not supporting members of our community here?” one neighbor asks her. Other neighbors simply told her she needed to go the hell away.

According to Montclair Local, Montclair Deputy Police Chief Wilhelm Young released a statement regarding the incident confirming only that police responded to a dispute between neighbors over work being done on the property, that no complaints were signed by either the white woman or the Black couple, and that the incident is under investigation.

Montclair Local also reported that, on Tuesday, around 30 Montclair residents staged a small protest against what one of the neighbors called “an act of racial bias by a white neighbor against a Black family.”
New Jersey Karen Harasses and Calls Police on Black Neighbors for Building a Patio on Their Own Property | TheRoot.com

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 03:06 PM
 
"Karen" strikes again! Sitting outside your own house waiting on your son while black.



A white woman was caught on video in another incident in which she tries to criminalize a Black man for doing nothing more than simply sitting outside his own home.

TooFab.com posted the video of the unidentified man waiting on his son to come out while the woman, also unidentified, stands on his porch telling him that he did not live at the residence.


“This lady’s crazy, y’all,” he says, in the video, which was posted to Reddit. “I’m at my house.” The woman challenges him, saying “why don’t you come into your f*****g house.”

So he walks up to the door and enters as normal. “Another white lady pulling some old bullcrap,” he replies. A housemate confirms that the man does live at the house. It is unclear what the location of the incident is. The video was posted to YouTube July 9.

The woman still doesn’t admit she’s wrong and the man becomes frustrated, shouting “I don’t have to do anything you say, lady.” He says that she’d already called police, but no officers show up during the video.

She walks away and continues to shout obscenities at him, accusing him of being a drug dealer.

"I'm a drug dealer... wow. Amazing," the man laughs. "You see that stuff on the internet all the time, but you never think it's going to happen to you at your own house. But there it is."
‘Karen’ Embarrasses Herself Telling Black Man He Doesn’t Live In His Own Home | BET.com

OAW
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 03:10 PM
 
that's just asinine.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 03:37 PM
 
Good lord.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2020, 04:15 PM
 
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2020, 05:49 AM
 
They need to make Karening a federal crime. Not that Trump would ever do that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Nowhere in the report did race or color come up as a reason or contributing factor.
Heck, after reading twice, I could not even see a reference to the race of the “brothers”.
Unless, you interpreted “brothers” other than literally.

-t
( Last edited by turtle777; Sep 7, 2020 at 12:55 PM. Reason: What Oreo said)
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020, 01:43 PM
 
Agree with turtle, there's no race info on the renters.

Also, the article didn't get proof-read. Multiple grammar and spelling issues. But I'm seeing those even in major news articles today. Newspapers must really be suffering financially.
( Last edited by reader50; Sep 6, 2020 at 04:42 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2020, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Agree with turtle, there's no race info on the renters.

Also, the article didn't get proof-read. Multiple grammar and spelling issues. But I'm seeing those even in major news articles today. Newspapers must really be suffering financially.
Other news outlets explicitly stated that the renters of the U-Haul truck were black. (I just picked two random links from the first page of DuckduckGo search results.)
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You are really disingenuous.
I don't think it is wise to be so quick to judge. Other news outlets clearly mention the race of the renters. Perhaps Thorzdad just picked the first article in the results page, which did not include this (important) detail. At best, this is an oversight and to call Thorzdad disingenuous is not called for.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Nowhere in the report did race or color come up as a reason or contributing factor.
You don't necessarily need to be able to prove that the couple who is accused of shooting at the truck acted out of overt racism. But it is nevertheless adds another data point, which shows a clear correlation between being black and being treated differently.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2020, 09:55 AM
 
I shouldn’t be required to do my own alternate research when reviewing an accusation of racism.
It’s sloppy to not provide proper evidence / backup from the get go.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2020, 10:31 AM
 
You could have made that same point without calling Thorzdad disingenuous and assume bad faith on his part.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2020, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You could have made that same point without calling Thorzdad disingenuous and assume bad faith on his part.
Fair enough. I jumped the gun.
Apologies, Thorzdad.

Deleted this out of my post.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2020, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Fair enough. I jumped the gun.
Apologies, Thorzdad.

Deleted this out of my post.

-t
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,