How many riots does it take...

[Timsup2nothin]

Three steps forward, two steps back? I dunno...

Your count of steps forward seems optimistic.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Your count of steps forward seems optimistic.

It is, yes. An agreement to undertake reform isn't itself reform, and the mere filing of a civil suit isn't yet any kind of justice. Still, when you've been neck-deep in crap for your whole life, being only chest-deep in crap can be called progress. You're still chest-deep in crap, though.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not a hypothetical situation.

A black female walks into a Walmart wearing a shirt that says "I Hate WHITES". She claims it is freedom of speech. Management claims the right to refuse service. Police escort her off the property. The woman becomes belligerent and calls the (Hispanic) officer "Whitey". Who is right? Where is the line?

J

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Solicitor's Office for South Carolina's 9th Circuit announced that a grand jury returned an indictment against Michael Slager for the murder of Walter Scott. No trial date has been set.

---

Meanwhile, in a suburb of Dallas, Corporal Eric Casebolt was placed on "administrative leave" after he was caught on video throwing a 14-year-old girl to the ground and drawing his gun on two other kids.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Not a hypothetical situation.

A black female walks into a Walmart wearing a shirt that says "I Hate WHITES". She claims it is freedom of speech. Management claims the right to refuse service. Police escort her off the property. The woman becomes belligerent and calls the (Hispanic) officer "Whitey". Who is right? Where is the line?

J

Just off the top of my head, it sounds like the woman was a b****, the manager of the store may have acted unlawfully in denying the b**** service, and the cops did their jobs just fine.

I assume the point of the story is that the woman was denied service because of her shirt, and the store manager was white. I don't think it's a question of freedom of speech, but I could see the argument that the woman was denied service because she was black. After all, it's easy to imagine that a white person wearing the very same shirt would not have been refused service.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just off the top of my head, it sounds like the woman was a b****, the manager of the store may have acted unlawfully in denying the b**** service, and the cops did their jobs just fine.

I assume the point of the story is that the woman was denied service because of her shirt, and the store manager was white. I don't think it's a question of freedom of speech, but I could see the argument that the woman was denied service because she was black. After all, it's easy to imagine that a white person wearing the very same shirt would not have been refused service.

"Same shirt" is not the criteria. Does the store have a policy and exhibit a pattern of refusing service based on attire deemed inflammatory or offensive? If not, then their making an exception in this case would almost certainly be deemed to violate federal discrimination law.

As to the cops, the question unanswered is how they responded to the call. They may have arrived with the assumption already made that the woman in the inflammatory shirt was the only possible lawbreaker and didn't at least consider that the manager who called them may have:

a) broken federal discrimination laws to start with.
b) been unreasonably offensive before their arrival.
c) treated the cops as a weapon at his beck and call rather than as enforcers of LAW.

Failure to INVESTIGATE before doing the bidding of "the white guy" is a fairly common failure mode among law enforcement personnel.

 

[EgonSpengler]

"Same shirt" is not the criteria. Does the store have a policy and exhibit a pattern of refusing service based on attire deemed inflammatory or offensive? If not, then their making an exception in this case would almost certainly be deemed to violate federal discrimination law.

I think you could refuse service to someone wearing a tee-shirt you find offensive, even if there's only one shirt you ever find offensive. The reason I brought up the "white person in the same shirt" hypothesis was to test whether a black person wearing an offensive shirt is the person the manager throws out. If so, then the manager would be violating the law. You can claim it was their shirt, but if you only ever refuse service to people of a "protected class", then you're violating one of the several Acts. People who hate whites aren't a protected class (otoh, if the woman in the shirt refused me service in her store because I'm white, I could sue her).

As to the cops, the question unanswered is how they responded to the call. They may have arrived with the assumption already made that the woman in the inflammatory shirt was the only possible lawbreaker and didn't at least consider that the manager who called them may have:

a) broken federal discrimination laws to start with.
b) been unreasonably offensive before their arrival.
c) treated the cops as a weapon at his beck and call rather than as enforcers of LAW.

Failure to INVESTIGATE before doing the bidding of "the white guy" is a fairly common failure mode among law enforcement personnel.

Well, I'm assuming from onejay's post that the cops simply escorted the woman out. At the least, it was clearly his intention that, for the purposes of his scenario, the cops didn't do anything more than that.

I'm not sure the cops are the ones who should be deciding that the store manager was wrong. I think the woman's case would be a civil one and not a criminal one, but I'm not positive, and I'm not sure what the role of the police is in civil suits.

I also don't know if I want store managers to be physically removing people from their premises if they don't have to. However, I would personally be very reluctant to call the cops to remove a black person from my property (or a mentally ill person) because right now I simply don't trust cops to not escalate a tense situation into violence. Theoretically, though, the store manager should be calling the cops rather than trying to physically toss the woman, even if he/she were capable of it.

 

[civvver]

Like EgonSpengler said an establishment can refuse service for any arbitrary reason so long as the customer isn't a protected class. That's why many rights activists are pushing for sexual orientation to become a protected class.

How is the woman being portrayed in the media? Do you have a link to any articles about the incident? It would be interesting to see if they treat her as a champion of free speech or a race baiting hater.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you could refuse service to someone wearing a tee-shirt you find offensive, even if there's only one shirt you ever find offensive. The reason I brought up the "white person in the same shirt" hypothesis was to test whether a black person wearing an offensive shirt is the person the manager throws out. If so, then the manager would be violating the law. You can claim it was their shirt, but if you only ever refuse service to people of a "protected class", then you're violating one of the several Acts. People who hate whites aren't a protected class (otoh, if the woman in the shirt refused me service in her store because I'm white, I could sue her).

There is a point of clarity that has to be made here. In your store you may be able to say "That is the first and only shirt I was ever so offended by that I refused service." However, we are talking about WalMart, a corporate entity, and a manager who is a corporate representative. I guarantee that WalMart does not have a "manager's discretion" policy. If their policy allows for refusal of service based on offensive attire, they need to very clearly lay out what is or is not sufficiently offensive AND demonstrate that through training and monitoring the actual policy is being followed. Failure to do so leaves them open to claims that they are in violation.

Well, I'm assuming from onejay's post that the cops simply escorted the woman out. At the least, it was clearly his intention that, for the purposes of his scenario, the cops didn't do anything more than that.

I'm not sure the cops are the ones who should be deciding that the store manager was wrong. I think the woman's case would be a civil one and not a criminal one, but I'm not positive, and I'm not sure what the role of the police is in civil suits.

I also don't know if I want store managers to be physically removing people from their premises if they don't have to. However, I would personally be very reluctant to call the cops to remove a black person from my property (or a mentally ill person) because right now I simply don't trust cops to not escalate a tense situation into violence. Theoretically, though, the store manager should be calling the cops rather than trying to physically toss the woman, even if he/she were capable of it.

I don't disagree that the store manager should call the cops rather than involve himself in a physical confrontation. What I don't agree with is the idea that the cops, once called, should assume that the side that called them is the side they should take. Their involvement should be governed by LAW, top to bottom and side to side. They should find the original SOURCE of the conflict, which in this case is a refusal of service based on a shirt. That refusal of service may or may not have been legal, and before the cops escort the woman out it should be incumbent upon them to determine whether it was or not...rather than just say "yeah I'm offended too so out you go." They basically put themselves in a position where they MAY have been called BY a lawbreaker to provide the muscle NEEDED by the lawbreaker.

That is the root of a lot of problems with "law enforcement." There is a widespread perception that they are just thugs for hire, and if you aren't in the "hiring class" you should just accept being trampled underfoot, pay your fines, don't talk back, and if a cop says jump don't question his right just ask how high.