A place for violence

Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
46,737
I've recently been taken to task over my willingness to embrace violence. This prompts me to open a discussion of a situation we'll call a hypothetical.

Assume you are a white person. Not because a white person is vastly different from person in general, but in the construction of the hypothetical situation there will be people who base their actions on the color of your skin, so for the situation to make sense this is a prerequisite.

I will construct the situation piece by piece. Please be patient.

Location: a store you frequent. Corner mini-mart, drug store, whatever. Not a big supermarket; too many employees and probably too crowded (make that too many people...the bigger store means they aren't really 'crowded,' but we have to limit the overall number). 'Frequent" means just that. This isn't an auto parts store where you buy brake pads every few years when they wear out. This is a store where you buy milk, or beer, or smokes, you go there often enough that the cashiers know your brand when you say "two packs."

The players:

Undercover loss prevention specialist. This guy is a store employee. He hangs around the store in street clothes, looking for shoplifters. You know him, because you come in often enough that his "cover" just doesn't work. At some point you struck up a conversation with him, and found out you have some common interests in sports. Having someone to talk to actually makes him less obvious in his hanging around not shopping, so when you aren't in a hurry you stop and converse with him. You don't even know each other's names, but on some superficial level you might consider him a friend.

A kid. This kid is mid teens. He's been caught boosting some small thing from the store at some point. He was given a pass, but told not to come back in the store. Getting a pass was a gift, since store policy actually requires holding such miscreants and filing a police report, but with youngsters boosting small items there's a hope that a simple "scared straight" will be at least as effective and maybe more...plus, when such a miscreant has to be held for a few hours until the cops show up there's a good chance his miscreant friends came in the store with him and keeping an eye on them is more useful anyway.

Scene.

You are talking to loss prevention guy (UCLP) about <sport of choice> when he sees the kid down an aisle. He has to go after the kid. You tag along, sort of on autopilot, expecting a quick "beat it kid" and return to conversation. UCLP provides the expected dialog, something along the lines of "I told you before not to come back in the store."

Enter unexpectedly, coming around the end of the aisle, Kid's dad. His entry line is "Get away from my kid." This being pretty reasonable, UCLP steps back. At this point some sort of explanation is required. UCLP says "My apologies. I'm a store employee assigned to loss prevention. Your son and I have met before. Anything he wants to tell you about that is his business, but the result is that he isn't welcome in the store. As long as you are with him though it will be okay."

Dad's response is "I don't care, you don't talk to my kid." He's obviously agitated. Coming down off adrenaline rush of defending his kid maybe, starting to consider why his kid is banned from the store maybe and get mad at the kid, hard to tell.

UCLP seems to give him some benefit of the doubt, and apologizes again. "Sorry about that. I have a job to do so sometimes I have to talk to people in the store." At this point there seems to be nothing more to say that would be productive, and he takes a step back, putting him arms reach from you.

Dad takes backing away as backing down, and puffs up like a banty rooster. He moves quickly forward, getting close enough to speak in a low voice and be heard, and says "Swing at me <your guess is no doubt accurate> and lose your job." He looks at you, who are standing close enough to hear him clearly, with a grin that says that he fully expects you, since you are on the "right side" of a skin color equation, to have his back in whatever happens when the cops get there.

Soooooo...what is the appropriate action here?
 
I might say something like "He did your kid a favor, not calling the cops."
 
I might say something like "He did your kid a favor, not calling the cops."

Are you counting on the UCLP being able to shrug off what is widely recognized as a "fighting word"? Particularly from an aggressive and possibly dangerous guy stepping directly into what some people would call "personal space"?
 
I've recently been taken to task over my willingness to embrace violence. This prompts me to open a discussion of a situation we'll call a hypothetical.

Assume you are a white person. Not because a white person is vastly different from person in general, but in the construction of the hypothetical situation there will be people who base their actions on the color of your skin, so for the situation to make sense this is a prerequisite.

I will construct the situation piece by piece. Please be patient.

Location: a store you frequent. Corner mini-mart, drug store, whatever. Not a big supermarket; too many employees and probably too crowded (make that too many people...the bigger store means they aren't really 'crowded,' but we have to limit the overall number). 'Frequent" means just that. This isn't an auto parts store where you buy brake pads every few years when they wear out. This is a store where you buy milk, or beer, or smokes, you go there often enough that the cashiers know your brand when you say "two packs."

The players:

Undercover loss prevention specialist. This guy is a store employee. He hangs around the store in street clothes, looking for shoplifters. You know him, because you come in often enough that his "cover" just doesn't work. At some point you struck up a conversation with him, and found out you have some common interests in sports. Having someone to talk to actually makes him less obvious in his hanging around not shopping, so when you aren't in a hurry you stop and converse with him. You don't even know each other's names, but on some superficial level you might consider him a friend.

A kid. This kid is mid teens. He's been caught boosting some small thing from the store at some point. He was given a pass, but told not to come back in the store. Getting a pass was a gift, since store policy actually requires holding such miscreants and filing a police report, but with youngsters boosting small items there's a hope that a simple "scared straight" will be at least as effective and maybe more...plus, when such a miscreant has to be held for a few hours until the cops show up there's a good chance his miscreant friends came in the store with him and keeping an eye on them is more useful anyway.

Scene.

You are talking to loss prevention guy (UCLP) about <sport of choice> when he sees the kid down an aisle. He has to go after the kid. You tag along, sort of on autopilot, expecting a quick "beat it kid" and return to conversation. UCLP provides the expected dialog, something along the lines of "I told you before not to come back in the store."

Enter unexpectedly, coming around the end of the aisle, Kid's dad. His entry line is "Get away from my kid." This being pretty reasonable, UCLP steps back. At this point some sort of explanation is required. UCLP says "My apologies. I'm a store employee assigned to loss prevention. Your son and I have met before. Anything he wants to tell you about that is his business, but the result is that he isn't welcome in the store. As long as you are with him though it will be okay."

Dad's response is "I don't care, you don't talk to my kid." He's obviously agitated. Coming down off adrenaline rush of defending his kid maybe, starting to consider why his kid is banned from the store maybe and get mad at the kid, hard to tell.

UCLP seems to give him some benefit of the doubt, and apologizes again. "Sorry about that. I have a job to do so sometimes I have to talk to people in the store." At this point there seems to be nothing more to say that would be productive, and he takes a step back, putting him arms reach from you.

Dad takes backing away as backing down, and puffs up like a banty rooster. He moves quickly forward, getting close enough to speak in a low voice and be heard, and says "Swing at me <your guess is no doubt accurate> and lose your job." He looks at you, who are standing close enough to hear him clearly, with a grin that says that he fully expects you, since you are on the "right side" of a skin color equation, to have his back in whatever happens when the cops get there.

Soooooo...what is the appropriate action here?

I don't think slugging him in the face is the answer. Maybe saying "I'm not a racist jerk like you and I would rather die than vouch for your version of events"
 
I don't think slugging him in the face is the answer. Maybe saying "I'm not a racist jerk like you and I would rather die than vouch for your version of events"

Again, this seems to be based on an assumption that the UCLP is going to be unresponsive to not only a well recognized slur that is waaaaaaay beyond the pale, but a potentially dangerous situation.

There is a truism widely accepted on the street: most fights are won by whoever swings first. The dad here has openly demonstrated that he believes that in the event of a fight he will be deemed the "innocent victim" no matter how it turns out. Under that circumstance is it reasonable to assume the UCLP is going to let the dad swing first? Is it reasonable to assume that the dad WON'T swing first?
 
Are you counting on the UCLP being able to shrug off what is widely recognized as a "fighting word"? Particularly from an aggressive and possibly dangerous guy stepping directly into what some people would call "personal space"?
Yes, I am. If I say "STFU and get out" to Belligerent Guy I'd be escalating the situation that UCLP has been trying to handle professionally. If UCLP decided to throw I'd help him, but I don't think it's up to me to start it. I'd be aggravated that Belligerent Guy thinks I'm like-minded, but I don't know how to communicate that concisely. It's UCLP's call to make.

I would be worried that UCLP may not know I'm not a racist tool, so maybe saying something would help on that score, I dunno. Again, though, I wouldn't want to start a brawl if UCLP is trying to keep a lid on it.
 
I don't see where the racism comes in

is the kid and his dad black?

how do I infer that loss prevention guy is racist?
 
I guess I'm still failing to grasp where violence comes into this. If the UCLP has to physically remove the racist agitator from the store for being provacative I'd go to the mat vouching for the righteousness of the action. I don't see where I'm actively doing anything here. If the agitator gave me a "we white guys gotta stick it to these PoC" look I'd tell him off, he's being an jerk for the sake of itself and its sad to set such an example for the kid.
 
I don't see where the racism comes in

is the kid and his dad black?

how do I infer that loss prevention guy is racist?

:confused:

Are you just being contrarian here, or do you genuinely not get it?
 
So the thug and his dad are white and the loss prevention guy is black? So they think I'm naturally gonna be on their side?

I don't see where I should show any of my cards. Response might be something like a shrug and "Don't look at me" or "Why don't we call the police and let them sort it out?" I would also be quietly scoping the place out for weapons if I didn't have one in my back pocket that day. (sometimes I do, usually I don't)
 
Yes, I am. If I say "STFU and get out" to Belligerent Guy I'd be escalating the situation that UCLP has been trying to handle professionally. If UCLP decided to throw I'd help him, but I don't think it's up to me to start it. I'd be aggravated that Belligerent Guy thinks I'm like-minded, but I don't know how to communicate that concisely. It's UCLP's call to make.

I would be worried that UCLP may not know I'm not a racist tool, so maybe saying something would help on that score, I dunno. Again, though, I wouldn't want to start a brawl if UCLP is trying to keep a lid on it.

Problem is that ultimately the dad is correct. If there is a CLEAR case of self defense, UCLP is still very likely to lose his job. If there is even a hint of murkiness, he is almost CERTAIN to lose his job. Point of fact if a shoplifter has the cajones to say "Oh, you saw me? So what?" and walk out of the store he can't physically stop them. That's reality. If there is any sort of brawl the only way UCLP has any probability of keeping his job is if he is not involved in it at all.
 
In the actual situation, I'd probably be useless, because I'm the slowest-reacting person you'd ever want to meet.

But given that it's an internet-forum hypothetical, and I've had a moment to consider it. I think I might just bark "Hey!" really loud at the dad, and stare at him hard.

Without having to explain on the spot what I think is wrong in his actions, I would hope it would serve him notice that I would not be backing him up when the police come, that in fundamental terms I side with the UCLP. But, also by virtue of not explaining, it doesn't exactly give him something to punch me for (whom he doesn't want to punch anyway), just communicates that the whole incident is being watched.
 
So the thug and his dad are white and the loss prevention guy is black?

The kid is (at least former) shoplifter, not a thug.
The dad is potentially just an overprotective parent, obviously a racist, and maybe a thug.
Yes, they are white.
Yes, loss prevention guy is black.
 
There is a truism widely accepted on the street: most fights are won by whoever swings first. The dad here has openly demonstrated that he believes that in the event of a fight he will be deemed the "innocent victim" no matter how it turns out. Under that circumstance is it reasonable to assume the UCLP is going to let the dad swing first? Is it reasonable to assume that the dad WON'T swing first?

You're assuming UCLP can't handle himself, especially since Dad has already telegraphed that he *might* throw a punch.

The last thing I'm gonna do is escalate a situation that doesn't directly concern me. From your thread title, are you suggesting that you would take a swing at the guy since your job is not on the line? MYOB, but stick around in case your friend needs some help.
 
In the actual situation, I'd probably be useless, because I'm the slowest-reacting person you'd ever want to meet.

But given that it's an internet-forum hypothetical, and I've had a moment to consider it. I think I might just bark "Hey!" really loud at the dad, and stare at him hard.

Without having to explain on the spot what I think is wrong in his actions, I would hope it would serve him notice that I would not be backing him up when the police come, that in fundamental terms I side with the UCLP. But, also by virtue of not explaining, it doesn't exactly give him something to punch me for (whom he doesn't want to punch anyway), just communicates that the whole incident is being watched.

The virtue of hypotheticals is that they provide a background that improves reaction time.

Your response, considered rather than instantaneous as it may be, has merit in my opinion.
 
Oh he's the black one.

Well principally I'd take a stand against racist dad, but in practice I'd probably just try to whimper away.

I'd like to avoid violence, not because of some principle of non-violence, but to try to avoid any physical damage (to all parties, but mostly me I guess)

No concrete practical ways spring to mind though

I don't see any reasonable point of view to go against loss prevention guy. Since hypothetical me is sort of friend with him, not only am I seemingly not racist, but I wouldn't go against my friend to serve the ego of some loudmouth stranger.
 
You're assuming UCLP can't handle himself, especially since Dad has already telegraphed that he *might* take a swing.

The last thing I'm gonna do is escalate a situation that doesn't directly concern me. From your thread title, are you suggesting that you would take a swing at the guy since your job is not on the line? MYOB, but stick around in case your friend needs some help.

I'm not assuming he "can't handle himself." Just pointing out that he may be realistic, and that a big part of "handling yourself" includes not giving an unknown adversary the first swing based on some arrogance about your own superiority.

How do you define "directly concern"?
 
By the way, no one is considering the presence of the kid, and the likelihood that he will be a hostile witness.
 
Back
Top Bottom