I'll wager there's a telling detail Friedersdorf is not reporting.

Note this comment on the article: "I used to work there. There's no private, "employees only" seating area on the First National Bank building's skyway level. There's a little row of chairs and tables and they're all open to the public."

As suspected, he had every right to be waiting for his kid while sitting in that chair.

Some nitwit called the cops, and then justified their call by making the situation sound much worse than it really was. This happens frequently, when self-righteous nitwits interfere in things that are none of their business. The cops then failed to use any sort of common sense - instead, they imagined the worst.

Wonder who picked up his kids...

I am concerned that there is some information regarding the law here that is misleading.I don't know all the facts, so I am not going to assign blame.

I do know that my front yard is not posted as a private area. If somebody enters my front yard and I ask him to leave, and he doesn't, then he is committing the crime of trespass. If I call the police, they have facts which allow them to reasonably assume a crime may have been committed, and to investigate, including briefly detaining the individual.

The owner of a public accommodation, such as a store or restaurant may also ask a person to leave or face trespass charges. For example, if the individual is being disruptive or has shoplifted.

The owner of a public accommodation may not ask a person to leave based on race, religion etc.

I do not have sufficient facts to know if the public premises mentioned are publicly owned or privately owned. I do not have sufficient facts to know if he was asked to leave because of his race, although that inference initially appears reasonable. Therefore, I have insufficient information to form an opinion regarding the conduct of any the parties in this case.

I always told my kids, politely disagree with the officer, but comply and we will sort the matter out in court if necessary. It never pays to face a resisting arrest or assaulting an officer charge, it places tactically on the defensive. Complying while politely and calmly expressing your objection, and then taking action after the incident puts you in a tactically better position since you are on the offensive.

I also some people jump to the conclusion they are being the victims of discrimination. A co-worker was on the receiving end once. An individual complained that my co-worker was discriminating against him because of his race. The only contact with the individual was by telephone. My co-worker had no idea of his race. Needless to say our agency had to investigate whether my co-worker was a racist.

> I'll wager there's a telling detail
> Friedersdorf is not reporting.

And I'll wager that you're a blithering, racist fool.

Because "telling detail" is poignantly horny language... 'Telling'!--- Intuition! Insight! Seeds of doubt! Distrust of media!... You wanna make it personal, by pretending the problem is with the Atlantic's writer Friedersdorf writing from Venice, California... Rather than the Atlantic, eyewitnesses, the testimony of those involved, the Star-Tribune, the City Pages, and a motherfucking VIDEO.

But you're standing there with your dick in your hand, and don't have the courage to tell us what that detail might be. You're in the grip of a fantasy... When your fulfillment comes, it will be delivered through a detail which is "telling."

I want to like you, Art Deco. (Ask anyone!... My heart pulses with affection for all my carbon cousins on this rocky ol' planet we call Earth!) But that will not be possible.


> Wonder who picked up his kids...

Luvyoo, Randy! ♥ You seem to understand that there are fragile human beings in this story, and not just venal ones.

(Note 4 Deco: See? Not that difficult!)


> I am concerned that…

Billy, five of your seven paragraphs begin with the word "I." You refer to the first-person singular thirteen times. Are you an ego-maniac?

Naw... I think you're scared out of your mind. You avoided contractions (I am instead of I'm) at least seven times, as if you were talking in front of prissy schoolmarms, or in front of harsh lawyers. You're trying to say something reeeeely delicate, and you don't want to be challenged. So you're having to concentrate on things that are very close to you, and you're unable to look past your own chair.

If you'd see this for what it almost certainly is —a racist offense in a famously tight-assed city, against a decent and unremarkable man— you wouldn't have to be so tense with your language.


Amy —

> This needs to stop and the officers
> here need to be charged and dealt with
> under the law, not coddled and protected
> by the police department.

☑

G-dam html

Thank you, Crid.

Loove, well loathe actually, how threads like these bring out all those obsequious to authority. Because, security guards and cops always tell the truth and if there's trouble there has to be some missing detail.

Sorry the gentleman in question lost time and money over the past six months getting this incident sorted. Thankfully, he was able to recover his phone.

It doesn't matter if there's a "telling detail" that might have been omitted. The officer asks him to identify himself. He refuses. He should be free to go, period.

There is no legal requirement to answer their questions or identify himself.

I'll wager there's a telling detail Friedersdorf is not reporting.

Some ugly shit there.

And Crid, you took this on perfectly. Beautifully. Right on.

Merely being on private property, ab initio, is not a crime, at worst it is a civil infraction.

IF this is private property, and IF the mall cop has the authority of the private property owners to ask a person to leave, and DEPENDING ON whether this is a 'public accommodation' or not, then the officer(s) may well have been justified.

But that's not the point.

The whole affect of the officers, from start to finish, almost appears to be calculated to escalate the affair.

Sure, the guy is voluble, and he's rude - he interrupts the female officer several times as she tries to explain what she's there for. He doesn't help himself. But surely Minneapolis's finest can be better-trained to deal with voluble people. Toll-takers and Starbucks clerks seem to manage it.

But then the male officer shows up, and off we go. He arrives in 'argue' mode and it goes downhill from there. 'I'm not your brother, put your hands behind your back, it's going to get ugly, you're going to jail' - every word out of his mouth, every act, every gesture, all of it drips aggression and a complete disinterest in doing anything but cuffing somebody and putting them in the back of the car. His aggression is almost tinged with boredom.

The female officer at least managed not to make things too much worse, although more by luck than by judgment. She at least tried to explain herself, but appeared to be completely incapable of responding to the mere suggestion of disagreement. But she failed to recognize, when he refused to provide ID, and walked away, that she had no legitimate grounds (or, at best, very, very shaky grounds) to detain him at all. She should have simply let him go on his way. But apparently that outcome was simply not among her choices.

The officers were completely formulaic, assuming ab initio that some sort of crime had been committed and starting with the formula - ID, who are you, what are you doing here? The fact that they might have a basis for asking for ID, doesn't mean that they have to - maybe figure out what's going on first? - but it was already too late, the formula was set in motion, and now we have paperwork to do, and having the data to put in the boxes has now become more important than the actual goal, which is to keep the peace. Give me your ID.

This could have been resolved with a few words from the security guard (admittedly, we don't see that interaction.) By the time these two chuckleheads were dispatched, the train was already in motion, and there was only one place it was going to end up.

Terrible, terrible training. Apparently, these two long ago lost the concept that some - most - human interactions are not necessarily criminal and there are better ways to resolve issues than handcuffs and jail. Their a whole approach seems to be geared to finding some set of reasons, no matter how tenuous, to detain, identify and generally bother a citizen, as their default mode - when the default mode should be to leave the citizen alone unless and until he does something wrong.

By the same token, they guy should have simply shut up and repeated the formula - Am I being detained? Am I free to go? If he had simply said that - nothing else - the female officer could/should have realized that she had no grounds to detain him - a mere hearsay claim of a civil trespass that is no longer occurring is not grounds to detain anybody - and sent him on his way.

Don't 'politely disagree with the officer', as advised above - that's exactly what this guy was doing, although we could debate how 'polite' he was' He never cussed, that I heard. Don't debate with the officer at all. Stand still, don't respond to any questions, and simply say - Am I being detained? Am I free to go?

llater,

llamas

He had already LEFT the property in question. And the cops, it seems to me, didn't see him sitting there but found him elsewhere in the skyway.

llamas, you're absolutely right about their making the assumption that some wrong had been done. Anyone can accuse you of anything. Cops should not be cops if they cannot apply some judiciousness and understand that people will make accusations and call for their assistance -- and really, 911 because a guy is sitting on a bench -- and that those accusations might not be about an actual crime being committed.

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" isn't a magic statement. Abusive cops will be abusive cops, and words are not going to stop them. I write about this vis a vis traffic stops in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" -- retired cop Tracy Ambrico points out that if you have your rights violated you should file a complaint afterward (if you can't call for a supervisor to come out during the traffic stop, etc.).

I agree that "AIBD? AIFTG" is not a magic statement. But in almost every situation where you are confronted by a cop or cops, that you didn't call, who do not know what is going on, and there is even the slightest possibility that they might suspect you of anything worse than exceeding the speed limit, and maybe even then - it is almost-without-exception the best (or least-worst) thing that you can say and do.

Don't debate. Don't complain. Don't explain. Don't argue. Don't say anything, apart from the formula. Once you've said it, be quiet and listen to the answer. Repeat until you get one.

If they have the right to detain you, arrest you, throw you to the ground, cuff you, haul you away and stick you in jail - they will, and it doesn't matter what you do or don't say. Keeping quiet and complying then is the least-worst thing you can do.

If they don't have the right, they may do it anyway - in which case, again, this is the least-worst thing you can do.

But if they don't have the right, and even if they're not inclined to trample on your rights, they are still actively looking for someone to arrest for something. That's why they came! Your goal - assuming you have done nothing (very) wrong - is to do everything you can to make sure it isn't you. And one thing's for sure - the number of people who have talked/acted their way out of being arrested and charged is several orders of magnitude lower than the number of people who have talked/acted their way into it.

I thought I had posted here, but our friend Crid took care of what I was thinking anyway.

The 'missing detail' is often this:
Even when cops know their bullshit story has been contradicted by video or other witnesses, they just can't seem to walk it back. Ever.

It's sad that we've gotten to the point that citizens need to know "AIBD? AIFTG?"

What's scary is that it's really only been since widespread videotaping of cops that we've come to this realization.

In viewing this story on Amy's Facebook wall, there are some things that don't add up.

This is a copy and paste from Amy's wall.

I am also surprised that nobody has bothered to investigate the perp's dubious story. IF he actually had kids at New Horizon and was there to pick them up, as he alleges...

1. New Horizon has an area where parents can wait.

2. This location of New Horizon offers NO school age programs, only preschool and day care. Parents can pick up their kids ANY TIME from those programs. There is no "release time" as he alleges.

3. There is a Caribou Coffee right next door where he could have waited instead of casing a bank by repeatedly going into employee-only sections to evaluate their security procedures.

But pardon me for not immediately accepting the race card explanation that has no facts to substantiate it.

This is the problem that I see on this wall. You're too quick to assume the racecard explanation. Yes, there are cops who act like thugs and racist cops, but why is it that every time blacks have a problem with law enforcement, you lot are so quick to believe that the cops are in the wrong?

Art Deco, whom I consider a boorish clod, merely opines that there might be something to this story that isn't being told, and Crid goes off the deep end, calling him a "blithering, racist fool." Which is a little like being called a shopworn, decadent hag by Madonna. Crid, apparently, has decided to spend his golden years as a bitter angry queen. Doesn't sound pleasant to me, but it's his life.

My concern is that we're so afraid that the U.S. is becoming a police state, that we look at incidents like this with our confirmation bias so firmly in place that we can't judge objectively.

We've only heard one side of this story; we don't know everything. The difference is that I recognize that I don't.

> New Horizon has an area
> where parents can wait.

Perhaps he doesn't like it, doesn't like the other parents (who apparently tend to be suspicious of black men in downtown St Paul), or doesn't want to distract the kids during their time at this place.

> There is no "release time" as
> he alleges.

Where does he allege this?... Whence the quotation marks around "release time"? Or is it just that we wanted to chill for a few minutes before picking them up, or to get the full value for the period of care he was paying for?

> There is a Caribou Coffee right next
> door where he could have waited
> instead of casing a bank by repeatedly
> going into employee-only sections to
> evaluate their security procedures.

So a black man could only be a thief? It's not possible that he was enjoying the public rest area which they'd been so proud to offer to the community?

Oh.

Well, maybe he was concerned that the Caribou people would think he was "casing" the pastry cabinet.

Also, Patrick... You're a child.

And for the love of a cocksucking Christ in Hell, for what crime could this guy POSSIBLY be described as a "perp"?

Perhaps Patrick's a racist little guy, too... That happens for people in the South sometimes, especially the undercooked ones.

Right? Amirite?

Patrick - even if every word of your c&p is true, including the unsupported-by-any-data assertions about 'casing' the bank and the entirely-gratuitous appellation of 'perp' - it doesn't change a thing.

He committed no crime. He moved on from allegedly-private property when told to do so. The officers had no reasonable justification to detain him or to demand ID. Once again, a hearsay allegation of civil trespass is not reasonable grounds for a Terry stop.

Assertions about how he should run his life - he should have waited in the Caribou Coffee &c - are nothing more than ex-post-facto attempts to smear the guy and somehow make this arrest retroactively justified. The fact remains that, even if this guy had 3 prior convictions for bank robbery, he did nothing criminal - and actual criminal acts are the only valid reasons for the police to detain anybody.

The proof is not hard to see. The prosecutof dropped all charges, because no crime was committed. This was a simple case of 'taking him for a ride' - using the process to inconvenience and punish this man for 'contempt of cop while black'. Desperately scrambling for ex-post-facto dirt on the guy won't change that, and is actually counterproductive precisely because moet people see it for what it is - petty, vindictive and prejudiced.

llater,

llamas

Everything Crid said, plus - on reading the assertion that 'there is a Caribou Coffee next door where he could have waited . . .', who else heard a whiff of 'n*****r, don't let the sun go down on you here'? That's the thing about equality, you have to treat everyone the same, you don't get to make different rules for certain people because they have funny hairdos.

llater,

llamas

Crid must be a liberal; everyone who disagrees with him is a racist. And I'm not a child, Crid. It's just that unlike you, I still have a few years to go before I can get the senior discount at the movie theatres. You really shouldn't have shared your age on this blog. In light of how you feel about senior citizens, Mr. "shriveled loon," I find it delectable poetic justice that you've become one of the very things you hate. But then again, with a hate list so very, very long as yours, you eventually falling into one of those categories was inevitable.

Frankly, a lot of you are what's wrong with this world. It's like Ferguson all over again. Young black man/white cop. That's all you need to know before you assume that the cops wakes up every morning to the smell of burning cross, and the kid was obviously the second coming of Christ.

And poor Crid, I'd be perfectly willing to admit this guy was subject to some horrific treatment by the local gestapo. It's just that, unlike you, I'm going to wait until all the facts are in.

Llamas, so very very sorry, but the fact that prosecution chose to drop the charges proves nothing about anything. Charges get dropped all the time. It is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the police, or innocence on the part of the arrested.

Art Deco, whom I consider a boorish clod,

I blend right in here.

If only you could, Art Deco. If only you could.

Some ugly shit there.

What? It's not as if the reader cannot be manipulated given that these sorts of confrontations can turn on granular details. And it is not as if Conor Friedersdorf is beyond reproach.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/232025/correction-sought-mark-steyn

No one has ever called me liberal.

In fact, I've always been one of those guys who's given cops the benefit of the doubt. No more. There are just too many of these videos out there.

As for the race issue, yes, it obviously plays a role with a lot of these, but I tend to defer to Adam Carolla's theory that it's not that cops are racists, it's that they're assholes. (There's a longer explanation there, but his point is that leaning on "cops are racist" when they shoot or harass a black guy doesn't explain the instances where they do the same to a white guy.)

That's obviously a gross generalization, but the age of the ubiquitous camera has really caused a lot of conservatives like myself to take a second look at law enforcement.

Anyone who doesn't have a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude isn't paying attention. (For me, it's the incidents of parents getting arrested for letting their 9-year old play in a park alone. What's your now-"arrestable" lifestyle choice?)

There's nothing this guy did or even is alleged to have done that warrants him ever getting arrested, period. God help us.

Elsewhere, the guy Patrick cut and pasted from accused Lollie of "beating his baby mamma."

Draw your own conclusions.

Everything Crid said, plus - on reading the assertion that 'there is a Caribou Coffee next door where he could have waited . . .', who else heard a whiff of 'n*****r, don't let the sun go down on you here'? That's the thing about equality, you have to treat everyone the same, you don't get to make different rules for certain people because they have funny hairdos.

llater,

llamas

Lollie?

This mans last name is Lollie?

Like in lolly? The British term for lollipop.

Why can my last name not be after candy?

Henceforth I vow to only marry man that can give me a confectionary last name.

"It's just that, unlike you, I'm going to wait until all the facts are in."

Word.

It appears that the police officers acted upon a call from a bank security guard that Lollie was sitting in the employee only section. That is trespassing, which you can be arrested for that.

Lollie said he did not trespass and at this point the first female police officer, who responded to the call, has an obligation to investigate who is telling the truth.

Lollie got what he deserved if the security guard was telling the truth. No one on this board except Partick is questioning if Lollie was telling the truth or not.

Let's hear the both sides of story, and then make the conclusion. We just heard the Lollie's side of story only.

> Crid must be a liberal

Absolutely!

Thanks for noticing. I've been that way my entire life, and have been a registered Democrat for the entire ride. I've always believed that a decent society owes certain things especially to its least-fortunate citizens, and that includes a (short) array of blessings delivered through government, certainly.

But years ago I noticed that rather than a robust, intellectual, Moynihan-style liberalism, most on the left were using their politics to minimize their responsibility for their conduct, falling into cowardly, childlike, self-defeating spirals of blame and reliance on the (limited) goodwill of others. As the left has moved so broadly into this infantile position, I remain comfortable poised in my enduring and righteous values.

But that's not important now.

What's important is that you chose to talk about how old I am rather than answering my challenges to the loathsome, baseless material you pasted from Facebook... And I figure there's a reason that you couldn't stick to the topic on the table.

> You really shouldn't have shared
> your age on this blog.

The thing is, I'm still so gorgeous... I can feel it from women of all ages when I walk into a room! Maybe the young women look at me and think of their loving fathers... Maybe that's the little shiver I see in their shoulders as they set their young jawlines and sit straight in their chairs... They're probably not ALL thinking romantic thoughts per se, though many still flirt convincingly —so very convincingly— in conversation. No, it's probably that thing where my dignified, masculine bearing reminds them that if they play their cards right, they could hope to enjoy the comfort of one of those in their middle years, so they know they should fill their young lungs with a deep breath and practice being good company.

…Whatever. I'm in a good place in these times. Their eldest sisters and youngest aunts are receptive indeed.

> In light of how you feel about
> senior citizens, Mr. "shriveled
> loon," I find it....

Google says this is the fourth time you've spat those words back at me, always inanely. It's another reason I think you've grown up to be the nine-year-old you wanted to be when you were eight: You're still tremendously impressionable.

But I meant those words. Helen Thomas was, in fact, shriveled and lunatic, as her erratic behavior at the end well demonstrated, as the certainty of her employment evaporated (to say little of her apparent anti-antisemitism).

I, personally and as noted above, remain firm and brilliant… So I don't know why you like that wording so much.

> I'm going to wait until
> all the facts are in.

For fuck's sake, it happened in January. Prosecutors and law enforcement evince no interest in the guy whatsoever... The only investigations are for the officers. What "facts" could you possibly be waiting for?

> it is not as if Conor Friedersdorf
> is beyond reproach.

So what you're saying is, you got nuthin'...

No "details," be they "telling" or otherwise.

Thank you, chang. I have no way of knowing who's telling the truth. Except that this lot already seems to know.

Lollie claims that he never left the skyline. The Security Guard, according to the police response (which Amy did not post, preferring only to share one side of this incident), states that Lollie was in employee designated areas, refusing to leave.

Either the security guard is applying "employee-designated" to the skyline, which he has no right to do, or Lollie is lying about where he was.

If I were to accept that Lollie is telling the truth, then I would have to assume that the security guard is some racist pig who calls the cops every time he sees a black guy sitting down in a public thoroughfare. How many calls has this security guard made to the police?

Moreover, I would also have to assume that the entire police department (or at least a good number of cops) are as racist as the Security Guard, since they were only too glad to haul this guy in for (as llamas puts it) "contempt of cop while being black."

There could be any number of reasons they dropped the charges. Perhaps the bank itself didn't wish to make an issue of it, since he was only wandering (supposedly) in employee-designated areas.

But the police dropping charges is not proof of innocence. It's only proof that someone, for some reason, chooses not to make an issue. Perhaps they feel there's not enough evidence, but it is no proof of no wrongdoing.

Here's the police version of events, which no one seems interested in. I especially enjoyed Lollie's response to it. "It's all false. They lied."

Thank you for the discussion regarding the video that was has been circulated from a January 31, 2014 arrest.

As is often the case, the video does not show the totality of the circumstances.

Our officers were called by private security guards on a man who was trespassing in a private area. The guards reported that the man had on repeated occasions refused to leave a private "employees only" area in the First National Bank Building.

With no information on who the man was, what he might be doing or why he refused to leave the area, responding Saint Paul police officers tried to talk to him, asking him who he was. He refused to tell them or cooperate.

Our officers are called upon and required to respond to calls for assistance and to investigate the calls. At one point, the officers believed he might either run or fight with them. It was then that officers took steps to take him into custody. He pulled away and resisted officers' lawful orders. They then used the force necessary to safely take him into custody.

The man was charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process. Those charges were dismissed in July.

We have had a discussion with the man in the video and he was given information on how to file a formal complaint if that was his desire. At this time, no formal complaint has been filed.

We hope this helps to clear up some of the information our communities have been seeking.

So the security guard just decided to call the cops on someone sitting in a public venue just because he doesn't like black guys?

I don't know when the tipping point was, but at some point the police decided that if they were pro active enough, they would never have to be reactive.

In general their timidly when facing high danger situations or dealing with bullies and thugs, is only matched by their willingness to ticket, and arrest people who are not a threat to them.

So in Britain, we have a child rape ring operating with full knowledge of law enforcement, and the politicians for 17 years.

I noticed the creeping nannyism with the D.A.R.E program and the broken windows theory of policing which worked so successfully in the high crime areas in New York.

I now suspect every police stop to be a fishing expedition designed to generate as much revenue as possible for the entire justice system.

I yanked my kids out of DARE after hearing my former law professors express their reservations about both privacy, and the fourth amendment,

For those of you who like proactive policing because you thinks it keeps you safe, I suspect you will rue the day, when there is a drunk driving breathalyzer mandatory stop every ten miles on every freeway, and toll road.
Maybe driverless cars will save us from that, and the police will have to resort to ticketing people for jaywalking in indoor shopping malls.

I don't like the direction things have been heading.

-- Perhaps Patrick's a racist little guy, too... That happens for people in the South sometimes, especially the undercooked ones.

Come on Crid. That's a might broad brushstroke, dontcha think?

> Here's the police version of events
>
> [much omitted]
> […]
> The man was charged with trespassing,
> disorderly conduct and obstruction of
> the legal process. Those charges were
> dismissed in July.
>
> We have had a discussion…

Why? Why were the charges dropped if it was a good bust?

The police explanation is indeed some pretty weak tea.

Right away, it kind of doesn't explain how he could have been trespassing if he had, you know, left the area complained of. And, once again, simple trespass is not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when told to. And he had - you know - left.

This might explain why all charges were - you know - dismissed. Because there wasn't any evidence that he had - you know - actually done anything that he was charged with. In other words - the assertions of the private security guards - didn't hold up.

Put simply, the police 'explanation' is a weak attempt to try and justify, ex post facto, what they can't cover up. Plenty of public domain reporting makes it clear that the area that he was ejected from is indistinguishable from a public area. Note how the police 'explanation' would leave a reader with no other information with the impression that the guy was wandering around inside the back offices of the bank.

He committed no crime and nobody ever said he did. The suggestion that he 'refused to leave' is kind-of disposed of by the fact that hevhad clearly - left. The officers had no grounds to detain him, much less arrest him.

I'm all for waiting for the whole story and hearing both sides. The thing is, we've heard both sides, and now we have to decide which is more believable - which interpretation matches the facts, and which doesn't. And I'm afraid, on a preponderance of the evidence,tyhere's not much question.

llater,

llamas

> That's a might broad brushstroke,
> dontcha think?

Yeah, you're probably right, but the pointillist work never registers with him. Seriously. Disagreement with this guy moves readily to unspeakable, erratic, naive resentments... Kinda like Southern racism. To wit-- I answered the considerations he brought to the topic, and then he wanted to talk about ancient quarrels and my advancing years.

And again, even in the sixth decade, I am SO good-looking....

AB: "...it's not that cops are racists, it's that they're assholes."

Whether the cops are racists or not, I think this guy's offense wasn't being black, it was failing to grovel. The cops' statements beginning with "I told you..." and "You were told..." when the victim asked why he was being abused show that they were offended by his lack of cringing obedience when called to answer.

The incident looks a lot like racism because the cops are white and the victim is black, but the same thing would've happened to any man, woman, child, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Samoan, or whatever, who failed to reverently submit to a member of the ruling class.

At the very least those cops should be fired and required to pay restitution out of their own pockets to that man. Any cop who cannot or will not do his or her job without committing crimes against other people is a shit stain on society that needs to be wiped up.

> the same thing would've happened to
> any man, woman, child, white, black, Hispanic

I envy your optimism about the state of American race relations.

For ten years I was driving home through Beverly Hills every morning at 2:00. I was pulled over three times. I saw hundreds of black drivers being questioned, a couple dozen Hispanics.

L.A. has improved tremendously over the years, but whenever two black guys at work say they're running out for lunch, I as if I can join 'em.

From the police response: "We have had a discussion with the man in the video and he was given information on how to file a formal complaint if that was his desire. At this time, no formal complaint has been filed."

Having had the experience of objecting to some ugly misbehavior I witnessed while working in health services at a big jail, which resulted in an internal affairs "investigation", I can honestly say: What a crock of shit.

According to the copy of the official report that was provided to me after the "investigation" was closed, the internal affairs investigators - two men in uniform and armed - went to the homes of the seven victims - three men and four women - to interview them. Three were not available to be interviewed, one refused to open the door, and the other three, all young women, were interviewed while handcuffed, "for their own safety and the safety of the officers", in the back of an official Department of Detention car parked in front of their homes. They were advised that if they felt they had been mistreated by any officer they could file a formal complaint. All three denied that they'd been mistreated in any way and just wanted to get on with their lives.

The investigation concluded that allegations of wrongdoing by corrections officers were "unfounded and probably based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of routine procedures". Apparently what looked to me in all my ignorance a helluva lot like four unjustified violent assaults and three sexual assaults, all resulting in injuries that I treated, were actually just routine procedures.

I don't know about the state of race relations, I just think incidents like the one in the video are more about authoritarian arrogance, stupidity and abuse of power than about race. I think such incidents are more likely to involve blacks because they're less likely to take shit off of grandiose cops of any race. There's a lot I disagree with about black culture and attitudes, but I do admire their lack of tolerance for authoritarian assholes.

The police report is "weak tea," llamas, because you've already chosen sides and refuse to consider another possibility.

Have you never considered that the security guards might be telling the truth? What if he was in an employees only area of the bank, refused to leave when the security guards told him to? Then he decided to leave when he realized the cops were on the way?

Can anyone imagine why this young father would have wanted to be hanging out in an employees-only area of an unremarkable bank when the branch had already, and boastfully, provided comfortable public seating in the skyway, particularly when he knew he was going to collect his young children from their daycare within 20 minutes anyway?

Does that make a lick of sense?

Patrick wrote:

'The police report is "weak tea," llamas, because you've already chosen sides and refuse to consider another possibility.'

Actually, you are right. I chose a side. But only after looking at both. That is to say, the self-evident facts in the video, and the clear statements of disinterested third parties, vs the self-serving and carefully-crafted PR statement issued by the police months later.

Being an ex-copper, I absolutely considered other possibilities than what was initially presented. Go back in the history on this blog and you will find me saying the exact-same thing about other cases, sometimes to the displeasure of our generous hostess. It's just that, in this case, I looked at both sides - and then picked the much-more-likely one, namely, that the officers acted like officious, arrogant jerks, who abused their power of arrest to 'teach this guy a lesson' because he failed to do as they wanted, regardless of facts or law.

All that the police statement - and you - have to offer is vague 'what if's and platitudinous generalities. Once again - if he had actually done anything wrong beyond simple trespass (again, NOT a criminal offense, not grounds for a Terry stop or an arrest), then there would be evidence of that - evidence sufficient to sustain the charges on which he was arrested. There was not - so in law, and likely in fact, none of it ever happened even vaguely as-described.

llater,

llamas

Here's the police version of events, which no one seems interested in.

Well thanks for that. Finally the unvarnished truth, because we all know the police never lie or embellish??

I'm always one to leave open the possibility that new information can adjust my opinion.

That being said... from the evidence we have available it seems pretty cut and dry that this man wasn't treated properly by the authorities.

It would take some pretty extreme evidence to somehow shift the blame toward the man who was arrested, and I find it to be very unlikely that will happen.

To those advocating holding their opinion in abeyance because the whole story isn't in yet I would really encourage you to consider the strength of the evidence before you already before resorting to a series of "what if" type questions and scenarios.

On the basis of the video alone I'd say there is a better than 90% chance that this entire situation was poorly handled by the police and they should have left this man alone.

Feel free to explain why Crid was wrong in his excellent (and right on) takedown of your ugly remark.

Crid has his own issues. Not my problem. Feel free to explain why a generic expression of skepticism is 'ugly'.

Crid has his own issues.

Understatement of the decade.

Well thanks for that. Finally the unvarnished truth, because we all know the police never lie or embellish??

And we all know that those who are arrested never tell lies, either, don't we? Such a wonderful age we live in! Where neither the accused or the police tell lies.

"Why? Why were the charges dropped if it was a good bust?"

Crid, charges are dropped all the time. If you have ever been involved with the police it is more of a miracle that charges ever move forward than that they are dropped. And probably the most common reason for dropping charges is the DA sees no personal value in prosecuting the case. It often doesn't really matter how good the evidence is or how easily the trial would be to win. If it doesn't advance the DA's career they often don't want to deal with it.

Either way the above situation is a good reason for all officers on duty to be recorded at all times and for those records to be easily accessed by the public. If you live in a small town and know the cop and he knows you there is a reasonable chance of getting a reasonable reaction. But in any major city? The cop doesn't know you from a serial killer and for their personal safety they act like everyone is a serial killer.

And as for southern racism, it pales in comparison to northern and east coast racism. Nobody in the US compares to Californians and New Yorkers for 'keeping the wrong people in their place'.

We Californians are anal retentive fucks about organic cardboard food and environmentally ugly as hell cars but I'll be damned if you think we're racist fuckwits on par with other parts of the US.

You go, Ben:

"And as for southern racism, it pales in comparison to northern and east coast racism. Nobody in the US compares to Californians and New Yorkers for 'keeping the wrong people in their place'."

When I lived in No Cal there were lines I did not cross, neighborhoods I did not enter. The school district borders were lines of demarcation, and people lived where they lived according to color. In my middle-class neighborhood here in Fl, every third or fourth home has a family with different colored skin. We shop in the same stores. We eat in the same restaurants. Our kids go to the same schools. We make eye contact and talk to each other. It is a very outdated stereotype, to say the South is racist. I saw far more blatant, egregious racism in Ca than I have seen anywhere else.

Where neither the accused or the police tell lies.

Ah, but like I said before (in this very thread!)...
Even when cops know their bullshit story has been contradicted by video or other witnesses, they just can't seem to walk it back. Ever.

Llamas, if you don't believe that trespassing on bank property is an arrestable offense, please feel free to do so at your local bank. You will be so very quickly disabused of that notion, you'll wonder (as I do) where you got that ridiculous idea in the first place.

And more to the point, since the only evidence is where it picks up with his confrontation with the female police officer after he left the area, all you have are "what ifs" and it's saddening that you can't even see it.

Do you know that his version of events is the truth? That he was sitting in a public area the entire time? Nope. Do you know that the security guards just invented an allegation that he was hanging out in an employees only area inside a bank, where he refused to leave when told to?

Nope. But that doesn't stop you from thinking that you do know.

In fact, in his video tape, he doesn't even try to claim he wasn't hanging out in an employees only area. Only that such area, wherever it was, was not marked; therefore, so he bullshits, he has every right to hang out in there.

Oh, so wrong. Both you and him.

Whether the cops are racists or not, I think this guy's offense wasn't being black, it was failing to grovel. ~ Posted by: Ken R at September 2, 2014 9:38 PM

I would agree with this - even as I accept that there probably was some racism involved: black guy, dreadlocks, dressed in working class clothes, sitting in a nice upscale bank - let's just assume he's "casing" the joint and hassle him.

We Californians are anal retentive fucks about organic cardboard food and environmentally ugly as hell cars but I'll be damned if you think we're racist fuckwits on par with other parts of the US. ~ Posted by: Ppen at September 3, 2014 8:55 AM

Unfortunately for California's self-image, it's racist history is pretty ugly.

• Anti-Coolie Act of 1862
  
• Chinese Massacre (1871)
  
• Pigtail Ordinance of 1876 (San Francisco)
  
• The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (federal, but driven by California)
  
• Asiatic Exclusion League (1905)
  
• Racially-segregated schools for Japanese Americans (San Francisco - 1906)
  

The list could go on.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/03/study-people-more-likely-to-shoot-white

This was interesting

But the police dropping charges is not proof of innocence. It's only proof that someone, for some reason, chooses not to make an issue. Perhaps they feel there's not enough evidence, but it is no proof of no wrongdoing.

True. However the DA can bring charges whether or not the "victim" chooses to press charges.

The fact that charges were dropped so quickly speaks volumes

Have you never considered that the security guards might be telling the truth?

Nope, because if they had then there would be bank surveillance tapes to back them up.

Chang wrote:

It appears that the police officers acted upon a call from a bank security guard that Lollie was sitting in the employee only section. That is trespassing, which you can be arrested for that.

True

Lollie said he did not trespass and at this point the first female police officer, who responded to the call, has an obligation to investigate who is telling the truth.

True, the way to do that would have been to have those that called the cops provide proof. Not tase and arrest a man with no evidence of wrongdoing

Lollie got what he deserved if the security guard was telling the truth. No one on this board except Partick is questioning if Lollie was telling the truth or not.

False.

Let's hear the both sides of story, and then make the conclusion. We just heard the Lollie's side of story only.

False. His lawyer showed up with mall security camera footage (wonder why the cops didnt try that) and DA was forced to drop charges. Not CHOSE to drop charges. FORCED to drop charges

> Not my problem.

No, I always elucidate your "problems" with inclusive, panoramic thoroughness, showing plainly how to improve your thinking. You never respond: You are muted with shame.

You got nuthin'.


> Understatement of the decade.

3:11 PM, you post a passage from Facebook, adding insults. I answer all of it. You don't defend your posting in any respect, just offer more insults. I ask why good charges wouldn't have resulted in a prosecution and you're silent, but for insults. I ask why, in your demented pre-teen daydream, would a father soon to collect his children from professional care would want to hang out in an employees-only area of bank, but all you have is insults.

It amazes me that you'd have been authorized to open a cold water faucet or tie your own shoelaces; that you might have been licensed to drive —or registered to vote— is terrifying indeed.

> And probably the most common reason
> for dropping charges is the DA sees
> no personal value in prosecuting the case.

"Personal value" equals "shitty case," right? Why would a professional arrest require such personal judgment?

> It often doesn't really matter how
> good the evidence is or how easily
> the trial would be to win.

Golly, you're kinda knowing the unknowable, there, arncha buddy? If you think you know the stock market that well, why aren't you Berkshire Hathaway?

I see what you're getting at, and this isn't a grand crime in any case. But whatever discretion police were given in this matters was poorly deployed, and they've brought shame and anger, rather than calm and comfort, to their community.

This is a year when we're seeing a lot of things like this.

> Nobody in the US compares to Californians
> and New Yorkers for 'keeping the wrong
> people in their place'.

I can't speak for New York, but to say that about California is just laughably naive.


> I'll be damned if you think we're
> racist fuckwits on par with
> other parts of the US.

Well, we often fuck our wits out with people of other races.

or all talk we used to hear about racial discord in L.A. (some of that talk diminished since the riots), the VAAAAAAAAAAST majority of contacts between races in Lotusland are warm and respectful, and many are quite intimate indeed.

I lived in the midwest: Continuing social segregation.

I lived in north Florida: Continuing social segregation.

I lived in the Ozarks: Do you even have to ask?

I live in California: Wanna catch a bite afterwards?

> The list could go on.

Oh, it did:

Balko, Balko.

Dude, those Ozarks are a, um, special place I don't even know how to describe. Any outsider is not okay, as far as I can tell. Truly, truly different part of the country. Beautiful, breathtaking really, and unbelievably backwoods. Like dueling banjos, don't let your car break down. White or black or hispanic.

Patrick -

So many errors, so little time.

First off (and again, having been a police officer) simple trespass is not a crime and is not arrestable. There are degrees of trespass. Suggest you learn them. If you walk into an open bank, you commit no crime unless and until you are asked to leave an refuse.

This is all beside the point, because - Second - he was not trespassing. The area in which he was, and which he was asked to leave, is a public easement - like a sidewalk.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/09/comment_of_the_day_what_st_paul_ordinance_says_about_chris_lollies_arrest.php

The bank guard had no right or authority to tell him to leave. Claims of 'trespassing' made in the 911 call are self-evidently false.

The area is so completely not private that the bank actually invites people to stop there and take a rest.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/09/first_national_bank_building_asked_folks_to_enjoy_seat_where_chris_lollie_sat_before_arrest.php

Third - The police claim he 'has not made a complaint' This was probably a true statement when it was made - which is to say, before they returned his cellphone with the video evidence of what happened to him. Needless to say, now that he has evidence, he has filed a complaint and is filing a lawsuit. Good for him. But this is truly a Vogon-constructor piece of deliberate misdirection by the police - no, he hasn't filed a complaint, of course not!

Fourth - the reason that the charges were dropped is none of the speculative claptrap that's been put forth here - it's simply that there are at least two disinterested witnesses who corroborate the guy's story. The prosecutor could see, what you still won't - there is no case, there was never a case, the whole thing is a complete farrago of error and misdirection from start to finish. In Dogberry's words, you could not hang a dog on this 'evidence'.

Now that you truly know both sides of the story, perhaps you would like to reconsider your position?

Oh, and it seems that the first officer on the scene - the female officer - 'retired' a few weeks ago after a whole 14 years of service. Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.

llater,

llamas

> Dude, those Ozarks are a, um, special
> place I don't even know how to describe.

And you've failed to describe them... And I recognize what you mean as you fail! I've tried and failed for twenty years now.

Until you've experienced that genuine mountain-man miasma of interpersonal distrust in the voice, body language, social graces and financial patterns of an entire community, you just can't believe it's real.

("Revenoors!")

I remember hearing ten years ago that a guy in Afghanistan wipes with his left hand.

No... I mean he wipes with his left hand.

And I thought, Jesus, that's primitive.

But then I remembered the ancient, primeval, cousin-bride culture of isolation in the Ozarks —a place with electricity, running water, interstate highways and shopping malls— and I thought, Afghanistan isn't that foreign.

While we're at it.

--

First off (and again, having been a police officer) simple trespass is not a crime and is not arrestable.

Trespass is listed in the Penal Law of New York and people can be arrested. Is the law different in Minnesota?

--

It is rather curious that he waits for the bus on the 16th or 17th floor of a commercial building.

--

His complaint to the officer was that the area was not marked with signage, and therefore he is licensed and privileged to sit there if he pleases. The commercial building is not public property. He admits the security guard told him that he was not welcome to sit there and he bent that person's ear for several minutes and continued to sit there.

--

He gave both cops a hard time and made a drama queen out of himself.

--

His defenders have made much of a screen capture of a Facebook posting from 2009 suggesting that the area was open to the public. Well, the security guard tells him it is not. Four years previous is four years previous and the building has changed hands in the interim (no word on whether there is a different security contractor as well).

--

Libertarianism: the social thought of people with an affection for contumacious adolescents.

> you could not hang a dog on
> this 'evidence'.

We need more Dogberry on this blog.

(As opposed to more Dogberrys, by whom we are already overwhelmed.)

Deco: What's it like to be that guy?

3:11 PM, you post a passage from Facebook, adding insults. I answer all of it. You don't defend your posting in any respect, just offer more insults. I ask why good charges wouldn't have resulted in a prosecution and you're silent, but for insults. I ask why, in your demented pre-teen daydream, would a father soon to collect his children from professional care would want to hang out in an employees-only area of bank, but all you have is insults.

Crid, why do you find it annoying when other treat you the way you treat others?

His defenders have made much of a screen capture of a Facebook posting from 2009 suggesting that the area was open to the public.

Did you miss this the first five times it was mentioned?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/09/first_national_bank_building_asked_folks_to_enjoy_seat_where_chris_lollie_sat_before_arrest.php

Art Deco - on how many levels you are wrong, the Lord he knoweth . . . .

It's a public space - an easement. I linked chapter-and-verse. You continue to labor under the misapprehension that a rent-a-cop has the final say on what constitutes a public space.

In other words, it's no different than the sidewalk outside the bank.

Repeat after me - there was no (criminal)trespassing. There was never any trespassing. He never entered the private property of the bank. It Never Happened.

You brought up the law of New York. Now go and read it. You'll see that even under the law you brought up - he didn't commit any criminal trespass either.

Once again, repeat after me - there was no (criminal) trespassing. At all. Ever.

He gave the cops a hard time? Not a crime.

He was a 'drama queen'? Not a crime. I prefer to think that he was robustly defending his rights, but call it what you will - it's not a crime.

Waiting for a bus? No idea where you pulled that form.

The list of things that he did that are not crimes is virtually endless.

Look, here's what happened.

He sat down, in a public area, outside a bank. Not a crime.

The bank's rent-a-cop made up a story to try and get him to leave. (There's the crime, if there's a crime you're looking for.)

He argued, but left. The pearl-clutching rent-a-cop called 911 and spun them a yarn about a trespasser 'refusing to leave'.

The cops showed up, and simply believed the yarn the rent-a-cop had spun. They never bothered to check both sides (hmmm? How familiar does that sound?) Because it was easy. Because he dared to disagree with them. Because he's black, with natty dreads.

I suspect that by the time they'd finished tackling, cuffing and Tasing the guy, they had probably figured out that he'd really done little or nothing wrong. But by then, it was too late, and anyway, he'd given them a hard time, so they decided to punish him with the process, knowing full-well that there was no case and never would be. In a sense, they had to see it through to the end, because to do anything else would be to admit error and expose them to liability.

That's what happened. No more, no less. There's abundant evidence, both eye-witness and video, that supports his version of events, and precisely none that contradicts it. Deal with it.

llater,

llamas

> why do you find it annoying when
> other treat you the way you
> treat others?

If it ever happens, I'll be in touch.

> It is rather curious that he waits
> for the bus on the 16th or 17th floor
> of a commercial building.

No less puzzling than that you'd think the St Paul skyways would connect at the 16th or 17th floor.




It's become apparent that some people will always, always defend their impulse to be irrationally suspicious of black people.

He was a 'drama queen'? Not a crime. I prefer to think that he was robustly defending his rights

Well, yes, but making a social statement while going toe to toe with street cops is hardly good policy.

He was pretty loud and quick to point out that he was Black and had kids to attend to. Seems a bit rehearsed.

I wonder what the loitering laws are in that area? My community is rapidly ghettoizing, and one response has been to push anti-loitering statutes.

The bank's rent-a-cop made up a story to try and get him to leave.

You do not know this, and I have no reason to believe that the security guard has confrontations with random people for shits and giggles.

==

There are degrees of trespass. Suggest you learn them.

Since I referred to the statute, it stands to reason I am familiar with the delineations therein. (Or it would stand to reason to those who are not reflexively condescending).

--

It's a public space - an easement.

I do not think easements are recognized inside structures.

--

If you walk into an open bank, you commit no crime unless and until you are asked to leave an refuse.

He was asked to leave and refused. He does not deny that.

--

The conversation should have proceeded thus:

Security Guard: "This is not an area for the general public. You'll have to leave"

Lollie: OK.

Exit stage right

--

That's what 94% of the population would have done, but this fellow Lollie gave the security guard and the cops a hard time because that's how he rolls. The lot of you do such people no good by lying and telling them they're behaving resonably.

That's what happened. No more, no less.

No, that's your fictionalized reconstruction of what happened.

It's become apparent that some people will always, always defend their impulse to be irrationally suspicious of black people.

Is it always irrational?

Nope, because if they had then there would be bank surveillance tapes to back them up.

Since Lollie admits he was told to leave and refused, surveillance tapes would be redundant.

He gave both cops a hard time [...]

Posted by: Art Deco at September 3, 2014 11:34 AM

For that I am grateful.

Righteous resistance in peaceful defense of your rights takes something, especially when no one has your back.

...
When I look like I'm somewhere I'm not supposed to be, people ask how they can help me. And then they help me.

Since Lollie admits he was told to leave and refused, surveillance tapes would be redundant. - Art Deco

He also claim he was in a public area. So why do you only believe HALF of what he claims?

For that I am grateful. Righteous resistance in peaceful defense of your rights takes something, especially when no one has your back.

Since when do you have a right to plant your rear end on the furniture of the First National Bank in St. Paul, Mn., most particularly when you've been told you're not welcome?

He also claim he was in a public area. So why do you only believe HALF of what he claims?

Because one is an admission against interest and the other is not. In any case, Lollie does not define who is privileged to sit there, the building management does, and the agent of that management told him to leave.

He was pretty loud and quick to point out that he was Black and had kids to attend to. Seems a bit rehearsed.

Yep.

Did you miss this the first five times it was mentioned?

Not only did I not miss it, I referred to it in my remarks. The Facebook capture is from the fall of 2009. Not only was it dated at the time of this dust up, the building has changed hands in the interim.

> making a social statement while going
> toe to toe with street cops is hardly
> good policy.

WTF does "good policy" mean? What does "good policy" have to do with personal deportment. You sound like a schoolmarm.

> I do not think easements are recognized
> inside structures.

Again, you don't know anything about the skyways of MSP: They're world-famous. (Also, your failure to use a contraction is a tell: You're being legalistic and prissy.)

>> Seems a bit rehearsed.

> Yep.

If I'd been treated with unwarranted suspicion a few times in my life, I might have a conscious resolution to not put up with it the next time. Would that constitute (impermissible) "rehearsal"?

For the record, that's what Rosa Parks did. She and her partners literally rehearsed how they were going to respond next time they were sent to the back of the bus... Verbal exchanges, physical detainment, legal responses... They were practiced and ready.

That could only be a problem for you if you think you're going to send her to the back of the bus.

Christ, the desperation of your arguments is painful to watch. They're like tissues that you pull from the box and let flutter to the ground. No matter how many of them are successfully shot down, you don't care... ('What? The skyway's NOT on the 16th floor?') They don't mean anything to you anyway.

You are going to go to your grave defending the need to treat black people with suspicion... You think it makes you a good guy; you think you're sharing insight which, for some reason, you can't put into words.

It's really pathetic. Grievously pathetic.

I hate to burst your bubble Ppen and Crid, but Californians are bigoted as all getout. Especially the younger ones. Californians in Crids age group I usually had no trouble with. But the 20-30 year olds are a nightmare. Wrong clothes, wrong accent, wrong skin color, wrong hair style, ... the list just goes on and on about the petty differences and bizarre bigotry of the west coast.

Also, the supreme court didn't rule voting preclearance unconstitutional. They ruled using multidecade old metrics for preclearance unconstitutional. Using the same metrics and updated data would have slapped most of the north with federal voting oversight.

For the record, that's what Rosa Parks did. She and her partners literally rehearsed how they were going to respond next time they were sent to the back of the bus... Verbal exchanges, physical detainment, legal responses... They were practiced and ready.

She was actually an official of the NAACP and she was selected for the task because the other volunteer for it had a bad temper and a history of responding with volleys of curses in those sorts of circumstances. The whole business was contrived.

The First National Bank in St. Paul is not a mass transit service and are not under any obligation to open their lounge seating to the general public or to put up signs in lieu of having the security guard inform people orally.

Beyond this point, we're just spilling electrons. I post chapter-and-verse that proves, beyond any possible doubt, that the guy was in a public space and not trespassing - and the response is 'well I don't think easements are recognized inside buildings.' Guess what - the law doesn't consist of what you think.

Save the electrons. When you're in this deep, it's generally a good idea to quit digging.

llater,

llamas

"Well, yes, but making a social statement while going toe to toe with street cops is hardly good policy."

That's the cops' problem, not the citizen's. Making a social statement is not an arrestable offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fn_8ErWbqo

Interview with Lollie starts around 3:10, around 4:45 if you want to skip the stuff on his music.

Includes a clip of Lollies phone video

> The whole business was contrived.

That's where your head's at! You're a racist zombie. At some point can't you just put that on your business card? It would save us a lot of time:

> Beyond this point, we're just
> spilling electrons.

Yes, but as it turns out, we were all along-- He think civil rights are a "contrivance."

" In my middle-class neighborhood here in Fl, every third or fourth home has a family with different colored skin"

So I've been to Florida and you're being awfully selective, just like you're being awfully selective about using a small section of NorCal to describe a giant state. I wouldn't use El Paso to describe anything Texan.

"Unfortunately for California's self-image, it's racist history is pretty ugly."

You're taking about laws that aren't relevant today? We're talking about modern race relations, not Chinese rail road workers from a bygone era.

I'm very close to the Japanese American community here and their children don't remember shit about their history. Nada. Nothing. Things are that good.

I grew up around nothing but Eurasians. White/Asian couples are so prevalent here I thought it was normal until I stepped outta my bubble. Yes that includes white women with Asian men.

We are the number one state with mixed race couples but we are the racists right?

I'm going to include homos too, because I thought flaming queers selling you makeup and two guys holding hands was just what you see at a regular day at the mall.

"But the 20-30 year olds are a nightmare. Wrong clothes, wrong accent, wrong skin color, wrong hair style, "

What the hell are you talking about Ben? I'm that age group.

I've traveled alot and California is damn near paradise in that regard.

Beyond this point, we're just spilling electrons. I post chapter-and-verse that proves, beyond any possible doubt, that the guy was in a public space and not trespassing - and the response is 'well I don't think easements are recognized inside buildings.' Guess what - the law doesn't consist of what you think.

You posted at length, but little of substance. And the law does not consist of assertions you pull out of your rectum. He was told to depart by the security guard. Unless you fancy security guards are purely ornamental and are not vested by their employers with the authority to enforce the employers' rules and remove people from the premises, your position makes no sense.

While we are at it, here is a law dictionary discussion of easements. Again, all the examples concern outdoor property.

http://thelawdictionary.org/easement/

The term 'easement' is to be found in case law in New York, not in statutory law, btw.

We are the number one state with mixed race couples but we are the racists right?

I did not say that Californians were any more (or less) racist than residents of any other state.

I just pointed out that Californians have a habit of "forgetting" their own history of transgressions while they look down their noses at everyone else (especially Southerners) as racists, homophobes, sexists, etc., based on long-ago laws and practices.

San Francisco, very friendly to gays today, was openly hostile to them (as were many other cities) as recently as the '60s and '70s.

Los Angeles has a long history of racial hostility, from the aforementioned Chinese Massacre of 1871 to the anti-Hispanic Zoot Suit Riots of the '40s to the Watts riots of the '60s to the Rodney King riots of the '80s.

==============================

We're talking about modern race relations, not Chinese [railroad] workers from a bygone era.

Jim Crow and slavery are just about as irrelevant. Yet, the South can't be allowed to escape those legacies, 'cause then the accusers might have to face their own legacies and ongoing issues.

Modern race relations are built upon historical legacies.

In the '20s and '30s, California politicians urged Congress to pass laws that excluded or limited Asian immigration, citizenship, and economic participation - because white Californians were afraid industrious Asians would outwork them.

Today, California is simmering with resentment that Asians make up a proportion of students at California universities far greater than their percentage of the state's population.

An attempt to restore race-based Affirmative Action to California college admissions failed when Asian politicians realized the new law could be used to exclude or limit Asian participation.

==============================

So I've been to Florida and you're being awfully selective, just like you're being awfully selective about using a small section of NorCal to describe a giant state. I wouldn't use El Paso to describe anything Texan.

I'm very close to the Japanese American community here and their children don't remember shit about their history. Nada. Nothing. Things are that good.

I grew up around nothing but Eurasians. White/Asian couples are so prevalent here I thought it was normal until I stepped outta my bubble. Yes that includes white women with Asian men.

You might be little bit guilty yourself of selectively looking at California through a personal lens.

The racial harmony seen in middle-class neighborhoods along the coast is not necessarily replicated in other parts of the state.

Visit the Central Valley some day and see how well the Hispanic and African-American and white kids all get along in the schools. Hint: they don't.

"What the hell are you talking about Ben? I'm that age group."

Posted by: Ppen at September 3, 2014 3:00 PM

I pass the baton to you - I've aged out of that group.

~~~

"I do not think easements are recognized inside structures."

Posted by: Art Deco at September 3, 2014 12:59 PM

That's barely thinking when you haven't taken the .68 seconds to google "inside easement minneapolis."

Here's a link to the pdf about the history of (interior) skyways as easements in Minneapolis:

http://mikemommsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/skyways.pdf

From the first page, first paragraph, last sentence:

"Even though they are privately constructed and
maintained, skyways must still be seen as a public-­private collaboration because public approval is needed and public rules and standards are often enforced."

skyways must still be seen as a public-­private collaboration because public approval is needed and public rules and standards are often enforced.

Urban planning, zoning regulations, and building and fire codes (i.e. public rules and standards) are pretty much universal. Doesn't give you a franchise to loiter in my vestibule.

There are four skyways at the First National Bank Building. Three lead out of the complex to other buildings. The fourth and oldest one connects two components of the complex, i.e. it's a corridor in the structure and predates the public skyway system in St. Paul by more than 30 years.

And yet in all theses months not a single video or witness has emerged to challenge Lollie's story

Amazing, isnt it?

> standards are pretty much universal.

This from the man who, hours earlier, thought skyways were built to the sixteenth floor of office buildings in downtown St. Paul?

OF COURSE a racist is shameless... Of COURSE you are. If you were capable of regard for other human beings, this wouldn't be a problem. I mean, we'd already have known that about you.

But another quality of your sputtering has become apparent: Even as your comments leave your keyboard, they mean nothing to you. You'll never address responses to them, or explain the shabbiness of their construction, or apologize for their baselessness: You pulled them out of your ass, so you already knew they're for shit. Their ONLY function is to take up space in the conversation... You type the period on one, and move on to the next, with no more enthusiasm.

That's what your hatred is about: Holding yourself —and anyone who happens to read what you type— paralyzed within a single, never-ending instant of impulse, with no reflection... Without the change in perspective that comes from taking even two steps down the sidewalk.

It's not that your principles are different than those of normal people: You have no principles, or issues, or considerations, to defend.

The reason Californians aren't reminded of our past transgressions is because the American narrative has never had any interest in the persecution of Asians and barely any interest in the past abuse of Hispanics. Black people and noble savage natives are where it's at.

Coupled with the fact te South is conservative and treats it's history much differently than we do ours and well it's a recepie for the South to be constantly reminded of it's past, whether that is with merit or not.

Those of us born and bred here, and whose families resided here while it was still a part of Mexico (me thank you!) know our history well and are aware of the racial tensions and how they vary. But even when I have visited other states I have noticed a difference and that is not just comparing it to the "good" areas of California.

And any fucker who makes the accusation that we are racist fuckwits worse off than the Sourh and the East will get run over by my Prius.

As to the UC Asian controversy I could write a big long comment but it has less to do with their race and more to do with the fact we don't like successful people. Asians outside the academic system are no more or less hated than any other group.

(A very real concern is rich overseas Asians buying up our property and bribing for degrees from good schools but that is another topic).

"Urban planning, zoning regulations, and building and fire codes (i.e. public rules and standards) are pretty much universal. Doesn't give you a franchise to loiter in my vestibule."

Posted by: Art Deco at September 3, 2014 7:32 PM

Easements are also pretty much universal; some easements are created through zoning regulations. Zoning regulations can obligate a private entity to provide public seating.

Here's an example:
"The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; (2) A bench or other sitting area with at least 5 linear feet of seating"

taken from:
changelabsolutions (DOT) org/childhood-obesity/abundant-seating

Art, your premise is based on a conclusion that is baldly wrong.

(And with that, I am moving on.)
~~~

Regarding American persecution of Asians - I love this 15 minute talk by George Takai, "Why I love a country that once betrayed me."

From minute 1:19:

"I was four years old when Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941 by Japan, and overnight, the world was plunged into a world war. America suddenly was swept up by hysteria. Japanese-Americans, American citizens of Japanese ancestry, were looked on with suspicion and fear and with outright hatred simply because we happened to look like the people that bombed Pearl Harbor. And the hysteria grew and grew until in February 1942, the president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast of America to be summarily rounded up with no charges, with no trial, with no due process. Due process, this is a core pillar of our justice system. That all disappeared. We were to be rounded up and imprisoned in 10 barbed-wire prison camps in some of the most desolate places in America..."

Everything from minute 10:11 onward moves me to tears.

I highly recommend watching the clip, but if you're short on time: here's a link to the transcript.

Michelle,

My neighbor at a previous home was in internment. I've known several children and grandchildren of people who were interned and do you know how many know anything about it?

Yup none. It's not discussed due to lack of interest and stoicism among Japanese-Americans.

George Takei is very unique in this regard. Love the guy and I personally love Japanese American history.

For anyone not aware we weren't just interested in interning our Japanese but those in Latin America as well, particularly Peru.

"The extreme animosity of "native" Peruvians toward their Japanese citizens and expatriates cannot be overstated, and Peru's government refused to accept the post-war return of Japanese Peruvians they had gladly handed over to the U.S. years earlier"

Ppen, I had no idea about Peru.

I can get the stoicism part.

The people I know who fled eastern Europe between the two world wars were also reticent to discuss life prior to coming to the U.S.

As one of my grandparents said, "What does it matter? We're American now."

I love that George's father and the other Japanese-Americans who fought in WWII claimed their U.S. citizenship, defied and defined what it means to be "American."

From Crid: That's what your hatred is about: Holding yourself —and anyone who happens to read what you type— paralyzed within a single, never-ending instant of impulse, with no reflection... Without the change in perspective that comes from taking even two steps down the sidewalk.

Kind of preachy from a guy who down below was extolling the virtues of avoiding a-holes, while focusing on personal satisfaction over the juice one gets from crushing the misinformed bastards around you; seeing them driven before you; and listening to the lamentations of their women.

We've got political correctness proselytizing going on here: find an instance that looks like racism on display; jump on it with all the righteous indignation one can muster; bask in the glow of orgasmic release.

And yet in all theses months not a single video or witness has emerged to challenge Lollie's story

He posted the video quite recently. His cell phone was in the property clerk's office at the police department for some months.

And what's to 'challenge'? Lollie himself says the security guard told him to leave. The only challenge partakes of information Lollie would not have and which has not been adduced here: that the security guard had no authority to tell him to leave, that Lollie reasonably believed he did not, and that the police understood that the security guard was not within his authority. Lollie's interactions with the police, wherein he was all but begging to be detained, are on the video.

The Pioneer Press crew were also told to move along by building security.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/09/first_national_bank_building_asked_folks_to_enjoy_seat_where_chris_lollie_sat_before_arrest.php

One of these skyways was built in 1931 by a private company and connects two components of a commercial complex owned by one company.

Easements are also pretty much universal; some easements are created through zoning regulations. Zoning regulations can obligate a private entity to provide public seating.

Again, my link above. All the examples concern outdoor access - ingress, egress, travel across &c. Other skyways in St. Paul were publicly constructed after 1966 and connect buildings owned by different parties and are suspended over public thoroughfares. Where's this one? The complex has an intramural skyway constructed in 1931. The news reports describe it as the skyway at the Bank building, not between the Bank building and the Kellogg Street Apartments or the other connected buildings. Also, look at the pictures of the lounge area and compare them to the outdoor pictures of other skyways in St. Paul. Where's the glass in that 'public' lounge in which Lollie was sitting?

"grew until in February 1942, the president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast of America to be summarily rounded up with no charges, with no trial, with no due process."

This is untrue. All Japanese Americans were not rounded up, and placed in internment camps. Most of them were ordered to leave the west coast because the ship building facilities, and ports were considered particularly vulnerable to terrorism, and espionage.

This was not a wholesale round up for racial reasons. Most of the Japanese forced to leave the west coast were still Japanese Citizens, although many had minor family members who were born here, and held American citizenship.

All of the Japanese nationals were given the option of going back to Japan, or moving inland on their own.

There was,also, by this time, considerable strife between the Japanese nationals, and the large Chinese American, and
Philippine American communities on the west coast because of the incredible slaughter and war crimes committed by the Japanese forces against other Asian peoples.

A few suspected of spying went to internment camps. Most others voluntarily went to relocation camps which had free food, and open gates. At one camp in Colorado, the Japanese spent most of the war driving around southern Colorado supporting their boys basketball team that played all the local towns.

And many of age to do so, joined the Armed forces.

Do some reading on what the death rate was, and the conditions Allied civilians caught in Japan or other Asian countries were held under.

The history on this is quite extensive and paints a much more detailed picture than the way the Japanese like to characterize it.

It is like they are trying hard to white wash a really brutal and sordid period of their own history by pointing the finger at someone else.

If the Germans did this, people would just laugh.

This was not a wholesale round up for racial reasons. Most of the Japanese forced to leave the west coast were still Japanese Citizens, although many had minor family members who were born here, and held American citizenship. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 7:55 AM

Most of those who were still Japanese citizens were so because they were denied US citizenship by law. The minor family members who were born in the US could not be denied citizenship, but not for lack of trying on the part of those who wanted them out.

Beginning in the 19th century, a series of federal laws set quotas by nationality on immigration and citizenship - this was driven by western states concerned about Asian immigration and eastern states concerned about Jewish immigration. Several western states (including California) subsequently passed laws saying non-citizens could not own land in their states.

From Wikipedia [Emphasis mine]:

In the United States, anti-Japanese sentiment had its beginnings well before the Second World War. As early as the late 19th century, Asian immigrants were subject to racial prejudice in the United States. Laws were passed that openly discriminated against Asians, and sometimes Japanese in particular. Many of these laws stated that Asians could not become citizens of the United States and could not hold basic rights, such as owning land. These laws were greatly detrimental to the newly arrived immigrants, since many of them were farmers and had little choice but to become migrant workers. Some cite the formation of the Asiatic Exclusion League as the start of the anti-Japanese movement in California.

==============================

And many of age to do so, joined the Armed forces. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 7:55 AM

Only after being allowed to do so in 1943.

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Japanese-American men were initially categorized as 4C (enemy alien) and not subject to the draft. In early 1942 the War Department called for the discharge of all soldiers of Japanese ancestry.

Because of the efforts and demonstrated loyalty of Hawaii's Victory Volunteers and the Army's 100th Infantry Batallion (formerly Hawaiian National Guard), the US government reversed its position in 1943 and authorized the formation of a Japanese-American combat unit - what would become the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated unit in US military history.

For anyone not aware we weren't just interested in interning our Japanese but those in Latin America as well, particularly Peru. ~ Posted by: Ppen at September 4, 2014 6:23 AM

I wasn't aware of the Peruvian detainees in US camps. Now I have a new subject to read up on. Cool.

I knew that Peru has a large contingent of Japanese-ancestry citizens; Alberto Fujimori, past president of Peru, for example. I wasn't aware that Japanese were emigrating in large numbers to Peru before World War II.

==============================

Coupled with the fact te South is conservative and treats it's history much differently than we do ours and well it's a recepie for the South to be constantly reminded of it's past, whether that is with merit or not. ~ Posted by: Ppen at September 4, 2014 3:02 AM

That and religion have large parts to do with why outsiders won't allow the South to get past its racist history and California is whisked right by its own.

Evangelical Christianity has always been derided by the intelligentsia (and those who want to be mistaken for it).

Things like the Creation Museum and televangelists don't help the South build a case for its intellectual development either.

==============================

Interestingly, I saw a map of the US with the number of hate groups shown for each state. Guess which state had the most. California with 77.

Of course, California has a high population, so that 77 might not translate into a high proportion of groups per person. Texas' 57, Georgia's 50, or New York's 42 might actually represent a higher penetration of these groups into the population.

==============================

But even when I have visited other states I have noticed a difference and that is not just comparing it to the "good" areas of California. ~ Posted by: Ppen at September 4, 2014 3:02 AM

I get what you're saying, but the thing is, I've spent some time in Bakersfield and in rural Santa Barbara County and I've seen plenty of homophobic and racist attitudes there. In fact, those attitudes were as rampant and open there (in some cases more so) than anything I saw in the South. I've lived in North Carolina (child), North Florida (child and adult), and Atlanta (adult).

Urban and middle-class California are more tolerant about race and orientation than most places (perhaps ridiculously so at times), but the state's hinterlands haven't gotten the memo.

Conan, much of what you say is true, only somehow, miraculously, that anti Asian sentiment did not seem to apply equally to the Chinese, and the Phillipino peoples.

They have to be painted out of the picture to characterize our dealings with Japanese citizens as racist.

The anti Japanese policies of the 1930's were in large part a response to their invasion of Manchuria, and their murderous subjugation of the Chinese, and other Asians.

Somehow Americans become the bad guys when we rightly, moved the citizens of a country who declared war on us, away from the West coast, while leaving the Chinese, and the Phillipinos alone since those countries were allied with the U.S.

I don't think Wikipedia gives a very good or fair analysis, and I am surprised that someone who portrays themselves as a historian would rely on it so extensively. However, if you dig around on Wiki you will dredge up a lot of information which adds a bit more real history to your inflammatory characterizations.

Do you perhaps think that in pre World War II Japan that foreign nationals were allowed to own property, or that we had any rights at all?

And yet, somehow, post World War II, the United States paid reparations for property lost by Japanese who were forced to move because of relocation/internment.

(Most of that loss occurred because of policies, taxes, and politics in the state of California, rather than at the hands of the Federal Government).

Property you now claim, they were never allowed to own.

The Japanese are, and were, some of the most vicious racists in the world. The only reason Americans get any respect from them at all, is because we kicked their ass in World War II.

I have several books I can recommend, but maybe you ought to start with this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804835659/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0415932149&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=178CJVT9B5X29H2YQMX2

Conan, much of what you say is true, only somehow, miraculously, that anti Asian sentiment did not seem to apply equally to the Chinese, and the Phillipino peoples. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 10:12 AM

Isab, Chinese immigration had been severely restricted and all but eliminated by 1900 by several immigration bills. That's why the labor recruiters then went to work importing Japanese laborers, and to a smaller degree, Koreans, Filipinos, and other Asians.

The Japanese are, and were, some of the most vicious racists in the world. The only reason Americans get any respect from them at all, is because we kicked their ass in World War II. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 10:12 AM

Having read over 100 books on World War II, I'm well aware of Japanese atrocities and attitudes before, during, and after World War II.

Iris Chang wrote a pretty good book on what it was like to be invaded by the Japanese in World War II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)

==============================

And yet, somehow, post World War II, the United States paid reparations for property lost by Japanese who were forced to move because of relocation/internment. / (Most of that loss occurred because of policies, taxes, and politics in the state of California, rather than at the hands of the Federal Government). / Property you now claim, they were never allowed to own. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 10:12 AM

The ones who were successfully denied citizenship were not allowed to own land. They were, however, allowed to own the inventory of their shops, the furniture and belongings in their houses, vehicles, etc.

Since they were only allowed to bring one suitcase with them to the camps, they had to sell most of their belongings at well below market rates.

The post-war reparations paid to Japanese-American survivors of the camps was only $20,000 per head. Does that sound like they were being compensated for the loss of California land?

"Does that sound like they were being compensated for the loss of California land?"

It was good to us Mexican-Americans we got to keep it. Thank you US Census Bureau for making them "volunteer"!

Things like the Creation Museum and televangelists don't help the South build a case for its intellectual development either.

There have been two organizations promoting Young Earth Creationism. One's in Dallas, the other in San Diego. The share of the population that's heard of either is in the low single digits without a doubt and they were likely most publicised more than 30 years ago.

As for 'Televangelists', let's see... Oral Roberts (long retired, deceased); Rex Humbard (retired a generation ago, deceased); Pat Robertson (84 years old, largely a purveyor of talk shows, antique reruns, and television drama, not evangelism); Jim Bakker (discredited ex con, off the air for 27 years, defrocked); Tammy Bakker (discredited, off the air for 27 years, deceased); Jimmy Swaggart (prominent from 1975 to 1988, discredited, off the air for 26 years, defrocked); Jerry Falwell (actually a fairly sober exegete, and no fool), deceased; Ernest Angely (the most roguish of the bunch, now 91 years old, a resident of Cleveland for 60 years). Gene Scott (deceased, not a Southerner by birth or residence, educated at Stanford).

Yes, I'm sure people living in a world of 500 cable channels (492 of them broadcasting junk) have religious broadcasters prominent a generation ago uppermost in their mind. And their favorite comic strip is Bloom County.

I don't think Wikipedia gives a very good or fair analysis, and I am surprised that someone who portrays themselves as a historian would rely on it so extensively. ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 10:12 AM

Wikipedia, while not an authoritative source, is a suitable source for summations and quotes to augment blog arguments made on the fly.

I don't always have a dead tree library handy and even when I do, I don't always have time to dig through several books to find a quote or reference to something - and then type it.

Wikipedia allows me to copy a quote or send someone to the Wiki article quickly.

==============================

Somehow Americans become the bad guys.... ~ Posted by: Isab at September 4, 2014 10:12 AM

I'm not saying the Americans were the bad guys. I was just pointing out that the argument that Californians can't be racist because they don't have a legacy of racism is inaccurate.

Nor am I using California's past to excuse any other part of the country for its racist past (and/or present) either.

Nor am I saying this is a racist country. By and large, this country is more tolerant and welcoming than any on earth.

There have been two organizations promoting Young Earth Creationism. One's in Dallas, the other in San Diego. The share of the population that's heard of either is in the low single digits without a doubt and they were likely most publicised more than 30 years ago.

The Creation Museum opened in 2007 in Petersburg, Kentucky.

=========================

As for 'Televangelists', let's see.... [...] Yes, I'm sure people living in a world of 500 cable channels (492 of them broadcasting junk) have religious broadcasters prominent a generation ago uppermost in their mind.

There are plenty of televangelists operating today. Though the heyday of televangelism is over, the craft is not dead ... unfortunately.

And while many operate from non-Southern locales, if you asked most people what area of the country has televangelists, I'd wager most of them would say the South.

The Creation Museum opened in 2007 in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Who's ever heard of it? Do you really think a minor philanthropic institution in a small town in the peripheral South is going to provide anything but confirmation for someone who already has certain biases?

There are plenty of televangelists operating today.

Quick, name one without doing a web search? Is Jon Ankerberg still around?

That aside, a number of those chaps were obnoxious hucksters. However, Jerry Falwell was as despised as any of them, and he was nothing of the sort. He was a megachurch pastor who broadcast, and he ran a college that he founded. There were not any scandals attached to his name, but newspaper reporters were not adverse to manufacturing stories about him when they were out of material (the campaign against the Teletubbies was an invention of a Washington Post reporter).

Who's ever heard of it?

Anyone who has been paying attention.

Bill Maher mocked it in his film, Religulous (2008).

Bill Nye and Ken Ham held a public debate about creationism at the Creation Museum in February 2014. Over 3 million people are estimated to have watched it live via video streams and many more watched it later on YouTube.

BuzzFeed.com mocked the museum right after the debate:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/things-i-learned-at-the-creation-museum#uk84ra

These items are a far cry from your casual dismissal ("likely publicised more than 30 years ago") of creationism's caustic effect on the public's perception of Southern intellectual and cultural development.

"These items are a far cry from your casual dismissal [...]"

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at September 4, 2014 5:38 PM

As far as I can tell, all of Art's dismissals are casual.

~~~

Thank you Conan (and yinz) for the thoughtful perspective and credible sources (most of) you provide. Conversations like this are one of the main reasons I've been reading this blog for years.

Over 3 million people are estimated to have watched it live via video streams

Estimated by whom?

of creationism's caustic effect on the public's perception of Southern intellectual and cultural development.

You're communicating with your own navel. Globular state universities all over the South, and your fixated on this place in Kentucky. That's not the South's problem, it's yours.

> Kind of preachy from a guy who

After a third reading, I still don't see the discontinuity you're talking about.

> a guy who down below

…and up above, I promise…

> was extolling the virtues of avoiding
> a-holes

Well, they were causing you distress... We only want to help you, Doomy... We can tell that you're sometimes overwhelmed.

Specifically, we could tell you were worrying too much about what the assholes meant to third parties, rather than how you'd answer the asshole arguments for yourself.

> find an instance that looks like
> racism on display

These aren't "instances": They're comments. Their "display" is willful. If you don't wanna be judged, be quiet. As noted, Deco's comments exceed shamelessness: They're an atomized, aerosol spray of desperation to say something which he knows a decent man would never say.

Artie, you're an idiot. You took what was a minor comment in my post and turned it into your major point of contention.

I did not say the South is intellectually or culturally backward. I said that things like the Creation Museum and televangelists don't help the wider public's perception of the South. Honey Boo Boo, Lizard Lick Towing, and Kenneth Parnell don't help the public perception either.

Yes, religion is important to a great many people down there. But it is elsewhere too. Didn't the Mormons and African-American churches help defeat Proposition 8 here in California?

Turn on any of those 500+ channels that you think don't have any televangelists on them and watch a movie or television show with a Southerner in it. Chances are, he's a dimwitted redneck or Bible-thumping born again Christian.

Reality says otherwise. With major universities (public and private), a rapidly expanding industrial base (Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, BMW, Boeing, etc. have all opened plants in the South), and a diverse cultural scene, the South is not stuck in Mississippi Burning ... except on television and in the movies.

Go to any major Southern city and you'll find a diverse city with a
thriving counter-culture scene and a wide variety of restaurants (not all of them serving barbecue - but if you get down there, try the barbecue, seriously).

Sure, in the hinterlands you'll still find the racist rednecks ... just like you will anywhere else. This all started when I tried to point that out to Ppen.

I was probably unduly piqued by her remark because, as a Southerner living in California, I get tired of the cliches and stereotypes put forth by people who have never been there or who went and saw only what they had been preprogrammed to see.

Thank you Conan (and yinz) for the thoughtful perspective and credible sources (most of) you provide. Conversations like this are one of the main reasons I've been reading this blog for years. ~ Posted by: Michelle at September 4, 2014 6:21 PM

Pittsburgh?

I did not say the South is intellectually or culturally backward. I said that things like the Creation Museum and televangelists don't help the wider public's perception of the South.

And I keep pointing out to you the obvious. Those things are not important and are merely confirmation for people with an extant attitude.

Pittsburgh?

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2014 10:19 AM

Yup.

Yup. The "yinz" gave it away.

You are beating a dead horse Art. Conan merely pointed out the touch stones people go to when claiming the south is a scary racist and backwards place. He even showed how that was an ignorant view point. The truth is you could remove every single one of these and bigots would find new ones to base their beliefs on, real or not.

Yinz = ?

Yinz = "you ones" or something to that effect.

It's a Pittsburgh thing. A friend of mine lived there for several years so I got a crash course from him in yinzer vernacular.

It's like a Yankee version of y'all.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinz

...We only want to help you, Doomy...

Thanks, Crid. There is probably not enough bandwidth in the universe for such a project, but I'm touched by your caring.

Specifically, we could tell you were worrying too much about what the assholes meant to third parties, rather than how you'd answer the asshole arguments for yourself.

The thread here is essentially the finding and parsing of racism, i.e. what assholes mean to third parties. Such is the soin du jour of these parts.

Those things are not important and are merely confirmation for people with an extant attitude. ~ Posted by: Art Deco at September 5, 2014 11:25 AM

Perhaps they do confirm an existing bias, but that bias originates from the skewed portrayal of the South in news, movies, and television. These "not important" things help create that bias.

If the only thing you know of the South is what you see in popular media, you'd think it was a backwards religious theocracy locked in a perpetual race war.

Then idiots like Ken Ham go and put up a Creation Museum in the South and, to the public at large, prove the stereotype.

I remember a gay man in San Francisco telling me he wouldn't follow his relocated job to Dallas because "gay people in Texas get lynched." He'd never been to Dallas, or even Texas. All he knew of Texas he'd gained from watching the news and television. Dallas has a large gay community - like any large American city. Houston elected an openly lesbian mayor ... three times.

Personally, I don't want to relocate to Dallas either. I've been there. It's a bunch of suburbs in search of a city ... and hot, Africa hot. However, it's also a modern cosmopolitan place with something too many supposedly more-sophisticated California cities lack ... jobs.

> Such is the soin du jour of these parts.

There are certain parts of your jour which du appear to be suching too much.

> racism, i.e. what assholes mean to
> third parties.

No no, never. Racism is a small-mindedness worth attacking for its own sake. OF COURSE Art Deco is trying to bring suffering to the lives of others, but I'm content to ridicule his cowardice for the unpleasantness he brings to me.

No triangulation is required. Teammates are unnecessary.

One thing that is significant about Annise Parker (Houston's current mayor) is that her homosexuality is such a non-issue. For the majority of hustonians it ranks with car color and what she had for lunch three weeks ago. To my knowledge there really isn't a gay voting block down here so running on her sexuality wouldn't help and for such a conservative city it surprisingly didn't hurt. Most of us are pissed she let the jerks in the DOT screw up the traffic lights again. But hey, that is the trouble with faceless bureaucrats. She has done quite well otherwise.

And Conan the creation museum doesn't make that much of a difference. As you said how the south is portrayed in movies and TV has a much more significant effect. I've met plenty of coasties who think we all still ride horses to work and are fighting off the injuns.

Shucks, they don't even recognize our fine tradition of interstate warfare, like the red river war of 1931. I still question who let those oakies have tanks.

Texas is great. We (Californians) send all our unemployables and people who cant buy houses over there.

Kidding aside I like Dallas. I have a bi-polar dentist aunt that lives there in a big giant condo.

I enjoy the South alot. I get to eat some real morherfucking food and talk to some nice people.