Racism or rational response to trespassing

[TheDrake]

I guess that would be one diligent racist reacting immediately to every single black person who walks in. It is pretty hard to extrapolate a data series from one sample, never assume that one sample is representative rather than an outlier.

[LetterRip]

LR, it seems that the Starbucks was in the Center City neighborhood of Philly (at least the account I read said so), which is a pretty busy neighborhood, with a 15% black population (potentially more commuting into or through).  It would seem very odd for a manager to approach two black men withing 120 seconds of entering into the store, when one would expect that many black men come in every day.

Seriati, as I said the 2 minutes was a speculation by an interviewer that has become the popular narrative.  There hasn't been a definitive source on the amount of time between them entering and the manager calling the police.  The only stuff we have a definitive time on is the 911 call and onwards.  I think the '2 minutes' was assumed because they said they were planning to be there '10 minutes early' for their meeting.

Not saying it didn't happen that way, cause no way to know, just seems like a very convenient chronology, almost like there are some details missing that would explain why the manager would react so quickly.

There are any number of scenarios that both parties could be acting in good faith.  Even with a 2 minute timeline, the manager might have thought they were someone else who had been there for awhile.  Or the men could have not realized the amount of time, etc.

If it were just racism, would expect a dozen calls a day, wouldn't we?

Not necessarily, but I would have thought that there would be more evidence of past events involving black patrons than we have, or something damning in her social media.

[TheDrake]

Another edition of "is it racist".

Oakland police called because of a grill

In this case, white busybody demands that people leave because they are not allowed to have a grill where they had it. black family tells her to get lost. Busybody calls cops.

Now, one possibility is that busybody got mad because people were loud, using foul language, smoke was blowing toward her, whatever. We've all met Ms. Busybody in our lives. She tries to figure out what she can do about it, and "Aha! They are not allowed to grill here!" Hm, what can I do to get rid of them... I'll call the cops.

Now, if this were a white family BBQ - we never hear about it. Cops show up, roll their eyes, and leave much as they did in this case. Note that the Oakland cops didn't find it necessary to issue a citation or arrest the grill family or we'd really have an issue. Presumably this is because every but busybody rolled their eyes.

The woman hurled several racial epithets at the group and told them they’d soon be going to prison for their Sunday afternoon cookout, Newsweek earlier reported. In the video, the woman said her call had “nothing to do with their race."

Oops, looks like it is racist. By definition, if you start using racist language - you are a racist. But where does this information come from? From the aggrieved family, no independent witnesses. Guess we're back to not racist, since none of the cellphone video has any of that. Back to not racist. Perhaps they made the assumption she was racist, and just embellished to get more support.

[D.W.]

Can't we just throw in busybody piece of human excrement into the same category as racists and bigots?  It sure would save time and all this uncomfortable indecisiveness. 

[TheDrake]

Pool nazi, or concerned community member?

A black woman has alleged racism after the police were called when she entered a North Carolina swimming pool, in an incident that has gone viral.

Jasmine Edwards said she was visiting the neighbourhood pool in Winston-Salem with her baby on Wednesday when a white man asked her to show identification.

She filmed the interaction and posted the video to Facebook, where it has been viewed more than 4.5m times.

Amid the ensuing backlash, the man has been fired by his company.

the latest controversy

This could fall into the busybody category. It could also fall into the category of tact. Let's say you see someone you don't recognize. Why not walk up, be friendly, and introduce yourself as the pool chairman and HOA board member? Ask which building the person lives in, or if they just moved in. Or just don't worry about it if a couple of random people sneak in and use the pool unless they cause trouble. At the very least he could have apologized once it was clear that the person had a keycard (which was probably clear already). Instead, he seems to imply that it could have been stolen because "they make their way around".

I wouldn't show ID at my community pool, why the hell would I bring my driver's license to the pool two blocks away? It's interesting because I just visited my own community pool for the first time this week. Nobody batted an eye. But if somebody had come over and demanded my ID, you can be sure I'd ridicule them for it. Then what, the cops get called about it? That's what some people deal with on a regular basis.

Does the guy deserve to lose his job over it? I'm not at all sure about that. Certainly he needed to resign from the HOA. Is there a good chance he'll have to use an alias or legally change his name if he ever wants to relaunch his career? Yes, quite possibly, if even that is enough. There's no parole from a racist label in the Internet era, and with advanced search anyone with your resume can probably connect the dots, especially a background check service.

He's getting threats over it, apparently. That's beyond out of control. This isn't a situation where he was violent or screaming a racist rant. Its where a person conditioned unconsciously by society acted in what he probably thought of in good faith. He certainly could have handled the situation better, but it won't be a the last time a self-important little prick wields his minute HOA power over community residents.

I'll bet he wishes he had apologized now. I'll bet he wishes he had taken the time to explain the reasons behind why they are so hyperactive about somebody getting in to their most precious pool.

[TheDrake]

Yet another busybody, this time in Florida who declared himself the parking monitor and wound up fatally shooting somebody.

I seem to recall most responsible CCW groups and training highlight the importance of avoiding confrontation due to the possibility of escalation to lethal force. I can't really double check that, my office blocks most websites associated with weapons.

[D.W.]

As much as I believe "stand your ground" laws are a good thing, the decision not to arrest this person strikes me as odd.  It's not a license to kill FFS.  From what I read, the shooter got shoved, and the victim backed off after the shove.  This doesn't sound like anything close to the threshold needed to employ a "stand your ground" defense.

Now, they may still bring criminal charges (and almost certainly will given the publicity), so he hasn't 'gotten away with it' yet...  The fact that there were witnesses, (and maybe security footage?) means that this murderer is going to learn that provoking assault as an excuse to shoot someone isn't going to fly. 

And yes, deescalation and avoiding confrontation whenever possible was taught in my CPL (CCW) class.

[D.W.]

Umm, so apparently the county sheriff's office is declining to prosecute.   

[Wayward Son]

So says CBS News.

[Seriati]

This is really a mis-citation to the stand your ground as a problem.  The real problem here is that the Sheriff's office thinks this was a valid self defense situation.  It very likely was not.  Escalating to deadly force when you are not confronted with deadly force is not self defense, it's just murder.

[Lloyd Perna]

Here is the florida statute.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—

• (1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
• (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
• (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
  
• (4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.

[D.W.]

The "may not arrest" part is interesting.  Wasn't aware of that.  Time to look up local laws again...

[Fenring]

The "may not arrest" part is interesting.  Wasn't aware of that.  Time to look up local laws again...

Even if your local laws say the same thing, I wouldn't try to exercise that right if I were you...

[D.W.]

For sure.  I think avoiding immediate arrest will work to their long term detriment.

[Seriati]

Lloyd that's not really enough of the statute to know what's going on, you have to follow the cross references.

The first of which is to the self defense provision.  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html.  That provision, in the relevant part, "A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force...."

"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...."

There's no reason the sheriff shouldn't arrest this person.  This clearly fits into the first provision, and not the second, as there's no reasonable belief in a threat of great bodily harm and they unquestionably used deadly force.  This isn't about the duty to retreat, or lack thereof, it's about an insane escalation, and that's not protected conduct.

[Lloyd Perna]

Yes, those parts of the law work together.  No question about it. 

The important part in the section you quoted is "he or she reasonably believes"

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

This article gives a good history of the Florida Law.  Specifically the 2017 change which, once the shooter claims self-defense shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution.

PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY: CURRENT LAW
In 2017, the Florida legislature amended the ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute to significantly alter the burdens and standards of proof applicable in immunity proceedings.

Instead of placing the entire burden on the defendant, the law now requires a defendant to establish only a prima facie case of self-defense immunity.  At that point, the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant does not qualify for immunity.

§ 776.032(4) provides as follows:

In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

Not only does this provision shift the burden of proof to the prosecution, it also raises the standard of proof from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”

[Seriati]

That's not really a new concept of law.  Notwithstanding that reporters always think they've rediscovered the wheel, self defense has almost always had the effect of burden shifting (it's typically a state law matter so it does vary).  The defendant makes the prima facie case (not just an assertion), then the prosecutor has to prove it didn't happen that way.

That's not really here or there though.  There's nothing - at all - stopping the Sheriff from doing what any of the rest of us can do and finding probable cause that this killing was not reasonable.  In that case, he should have been arrested.  He still can be arrested.

Keep in mind, the Sheriff's position is not the final word.  The local prosecutor, I expect, is going to find probable cause to bring murder charges, possibly even pre-meditated ones at some point.  The media will report it as a huge "reversal" notwithstanding that it is a totally predictable result.

[Fenring]

There's nothing - at all - stopping the Sheriff from doing what any of the rest of us can do and finding probable cause that this killing was not reasonable.  In that case, he should have been arrested.  He still can be arrested.

Isn't it possible to pursue a potential murder case without arresting the accused right after the crime? If he's not a flight risk and they'd rather gather evidence before deciding whether or not to prosecute, then maybe an initial arrest wouldn't have been warranted. They could always arrest him later if they decided firmly that they wanted to prosecute.

[D.W.]

This is my understanding as well Fenring.  It's a case of erring on the side of caution for the police.  If he's not a flight risk anyway, they COULD be overstepping their authority on the arrest, and don't really lose any options for a later prosecution.  You are making the arresting officers decide if they have probable cause to doubt / refute a claim of self defense, right on the spot.

[Seriati]

That's what my last paragraph is about.  Ever see law and order?  The prosecutor is the one that's going to decide what charges to bring.  The reporting on this is really confusing, in that it seems to attribute that decision to the sheriff.

[TheDrake]

It is interesting. In an odd twist, CNN actually has a better headline than other outlets:

"Florida man could avoid charges in fatal shooting because of 'stand your ground' law"

Fox 13 elaborates locally:

The sheriff's comments surprised Tampa attorney Anthony Rickman. He says prosecutors could still charge the shooter but Gualtieri's comments might make that difficult.

“They look at the case at a much higher standard of proof. They [ask], ‘Can we prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?’ and if you have the sheriff standing up in front of a podium saying, ‘We don't have probable cause to even believe he should be arrested,’ it's going to be hard for the State Attorney's Office to turn around and say, ‘Well, we think he should be prosecuted,’” Rickman explained.

This kind of feeds back into the idea of calling police on somebody. If a bystander or one of the arguers had called police, maybe they de-escalate the situation. On the other hand, they might just do the shooting themselves - especially if somebody reports that one of the people involved is armed. The less people trust police to do the right thing and calm things down, the more people are likely to wind up on their own?

[Lloyd Perna]

The DA has charged him with manslaughter
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343

[TheDrake]

Some people don't need a gun to kill a racist busybody

The incident occurred on Sept. 26 in Northeast Portland, when witnesses said Magnuson started the altercation by yelling at Warren “very aggressively” to slow down, the paper reported. When Warren tried to speak with Magnuson after stopping the vehicle, Magnuson called him racial slurs and threw a drink at the FedEx employee.

Some witnesses said Magnuson also hurled a bag of food at Warren, the paper reported, before he threw a punch that missed. Warren hit Magnuson above his left eye, knocking him to the ground unconscious, the report said. Magnuson later died, according to the paper.

“Oregon law contains no ‘duty to retreat’ and Mr. Warren was within his right to exit his vehicle and verbally challenge the manner in which Mr. Magnuson was addressing him,” the memo said, according to the paper. “Mr. Magnuson was the initial verbal aggressor; Mr. Warren responded in kind. Mr. Magnuson then escalated and became the initial physical aggressor; Mr. Warren again responded in kind.”

While Magnuson might still be alive if Warren had not stopped, Gibbs noted that “the decision by Mr. Warren, who is black, to not let the racist vitriol to which he was being subjected go unanswered is not of legal significance,” according to the paper.

[TheDrake]

Thought I'd ask the question again for a new event, "Is it racist?"

UK grocery chain Waitrose apologizes for dark chocolate.

The "Waitrose Trio of Chocolate Easter Ducklings" contains a white, milk and dark chocolate version, which were named "Fluffy," "Crispy" and "Ugly" respectively.

A hereby issue a mild apology to the people who have complained about the clarity of rules on offensive things.

[DJQuag]

My friend, we put a guy in the docket for training his dog to raise it's paw when someone said "Heil Hitler," and then him putting the video on YouTube.

Things can still disappoint me. Nothing surprises me anymore.

P.S. Born in the UK. Lived here ten years. Moved to the US and lived there for 20. US citizen via my American father. Moved back to the UK five years ago. I additionally try to adjust my spelling depending on who I'm talking to. For you guys I go American.

[TheDrake]

A Fulham FC fan living in California is suing a state agency after he was banned from having the letters COYW on a personalised car number plate, as they feared the slogan "Come on you whites" had racist connotations.