Arrested for being black....at starbucks?

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, Drummer61 said:

Historically, who  were the real slave owners, the Africans, Muhammad and the Muslims, Arabs...Muhammad used to own, rape,buy,sell, abuse  and kill them....Most here seem to blame southern Democrats...Wowwwwww

They were all real slave owners, but here in America which ones were relevant to America history?  Thanks

[Mjd33]

Just now, Horsefly said:

Your point of view is not supported by any reputable academia.

Lol What academia? You mean the indoctrinating textbooks that are written by anti conservative propagandists with a certain agenda. 

I’ve studied slavery extensively .... I had to educate sportsjizz and fbguy about booker t Washington and not to fall into the trap they are currently in hundreds of years after his teachings. 

[Horsefly]

6 minutes ago, Mjd33 said:

Lol What academia? You mean the indoctrinating textbooks that are written by anti conservative propagandists with a certain agenda. 

I’ve studied slavery extensively .... I had to educate sportsjizz and fbguy about booker t Washington and not to fall into the trap they are currently in hundreds of years after his teachings. 

What's your source(s)? BC I was easily able to find your numbers you quoted doing a google search from some online site. Was the research peer reviewed?

so you think the greater amount of Irish immigrants came here to America in the 1600 and not the million+ that came after the Irish famine?  

 

[Mjd33]

The only relevant slavery conversation that should be discussed in 2018 is the one that’s happening in Libya. 

Ask yourself .... Why is there slavery in Libya? 

Well.... look no further than Hillary Clinton.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-ponders-2020-run-lets-not-forget-her-real-libya-scandal-glenn-reynolds-column/895853001/

But trump’s the racist .... 🙄

I’m sorry....  did any of his actions lead to a modern day slave trade in any country? I think not. 

[Mjd33]

Just now, Horsefly said:

What's your source(s)? BC I was easily able to find your numbers you quoted doing a google search from some online site. Was the research peer reviewed?

so you think the greater amount of Irish immigrants came here to America in the 1600 and not the close to a million that came during the Irish famine?  

 

The point went over your head. 

All slavery was shitty was my point. It affected not only blacks like were told but whites as well .... it’s disgraceful what happened. 

But calling for reparations (like noon the board bozo) over 150 years later is ridiculous. 

[Horsefly]

11 minutes ago, Mjd33 said:

The point went over your head. 

All slavery was shitty was my point. It affected not only blacks like were told but whites as well .... it’s disgraceful what happened. 

But calling for reparations (like noon the board bozo) over 150 years later is ridiculous. 

Frankly you're  not educated enough to send anything over my head.  I asked for your source for your input as I think it's bullshit!   

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-17/curious-origins-irish-slaves-myth

Your reparations rant was sloppy at best as even with indentured servitude most Irish immigrants came over after their famine (1845-1850), making their claim to reparations null and void!

[Mjd33]

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

[Mjd33]

8 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Your reparations rant was sloppy at best as even with indentured servitude most Irish immigrants here came over after their famine, making their claim to reparations null and void!

Yes, that’s right they willingly came here to be indentured servants. 

What a moron. 

How’s reparations working out in S Africa? 

Do I need to remind you what happened in Venezuela when reparation bill was enacted? I’m sure you know .... considering you know everything. 

[Mjd33]

I know horsefly ...... 

You have a history degree from sam Houston state that was taught by a professor similar to the one at Fresno state in the news. 

You got an A in that class so you’re the expert. 

[Horsefly]

14 minutes ago, Mjd33 said:

Yes, that’s right they willingly came here to be indentured servants. 

What a moron. 

How’s reparations working out in S Africa? 

Do I need to remind you what happened in Venezuela when reparation bill was enacted? I’m sure you know .... considering you know everything. 

Once you start to name calling you've lost the argument.  Yes they did agree.  They couldn't afford the travel and it was a convenient arrangement for them to come here to the new territory and they worked off their debts as indentured servants.

im not arguing for reparations, did you pull that out of your ass as well? (It's too expensive and clear lines of slavery lineage have been blurred over the years) 

im not  going to argue with a faux intellectual.  You can have it. You've been wholely indoctrinated by the alt right with their alt reality.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

2 hours ago, Sportsnut said:

And the boss said the employees were wrong

BOOM 

BOOM

Could care less where Starbucks waffles on issues.

My issue is your take on things, thing that are convenient or suits you is your most likely choice.

My answer to that was, your fave comment is "don't tell me what to do."

If a business has a policy in place that's perfectly legal, you would feel as if it doesn't apply to you.

Therein lies the rub.

Just because you can enter my yard from the street, doesn't mean you can take a piss in the bushes because it suits or is convenient for you.

 

 

[Mjd33]

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

 Yes they did agree.  

I’m sure the 100,000 children  under the age of 14 ripped away from their parents came willingly. 

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, Mjd33 said:

You have proven yourself to be the most uneducated fool on this board. 

Take a bow. 

I appreciate the accolades

coming from you, we all know what it means

thanks! 

 

[rockinl]

17 hours ago, World Citizen said:

Never heard anybody label all police as racist killers EVER.  That doesn't even make sense.  To question the way individuals or departmental methods of policing does make sense.  

I'm with you on the 6$ coffee though.  

I was a LEO for 12 years. Ive heard it plenty of times. At least about the white LEOs.

[World Citizen]

7 minutes ago, rockinl said:

I was a LEO for 12 years. Ive heard it plenty of times. At least about the white LEOs.

Not sure What your astrological sign has to do with anything.  😋

Seriously, I have never heard that on this board or anyplace else.  If you have it was wrong.  There are many many more good cops than bad ones and I respect the profession a lot.  I wanted to be a cop at one time.  That doesn't mean that the bad ones cannot be questioned or that bad policing shouldn't be addressed.  

We both would agree I think that a few bad ones can mess it up for a lot of good ones.  The sooner you remove and fix the bad apples the better chance the good apples wont go bad.  Keep the good and get rid of the bad.  

As for the OP, the problem was in calling the police to begin with. Imho.

 

[World Citizen]

8 hours ago, noonereal said:

@FootballGuy

 

and no one here is addressing the real issue. The poverty that way too many blacks live in that often compel them to live outside the capitalistic system were are all inscripted into. This sets these stereotypes. 

If it was not for the considerable "residue" from slavery and then segregation this would not have evolved.

until reparations are made to elevate the lingering injustices,  this will continue.

This has a lot of truth in it in a larger view but in this particular case the two guys were not living outside the capitalistic system.  They were shown an unfairness and it pissed them off.  

 

[World Citizen]

21 hours ago, LeftOnBase said:

They were asked by management to leave and then by the police, per ABC News....who I hate to quote because of their left leaning.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I don't need to be hit over the head to understand that Starbucks is in business to make money. 

No, I was NOT there. The two men actually admitted that they were asked to leave and refused..... By management and then by law enforcement.

This isn't the first incident that demands something be done for a wrong. It certainly won't be the last. Double standards are in vogue in today's environment. Let's all celebrate crime and criminals! Dumb........ain't it?

It's only dumb when you assume the guys were criminals.  

What would you do if you were wronged bc you were white?  Repeatedly.  Or even killed bc your skin color made people suspicious and fearful.  Add on decades upon decades upon decades and you may feel a certain way about it.  

 

[ECHS05]

The NSM is holding a rally in my hometown of Newnan GA right now... its kinda weird.

 

[LeftOnBase]

21 hours ago, Horsefly said:

HER account is she told them to leave, you took it without hesitation.  They claim they weren't asked by management to leave. It's on VIDEO.  Go to the 1:28 on the video and listen to Robins question and their answer. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/men-arrested-starbucks-business-meeting-hoping-change-lives/story?id=54578217 

 You weren't there and don't know all the FACTS, you are simply taking her word for what happened.

double standard? Were you hollering double standard when that little drunk punk killed those pedestrians and affluenza was argued as a defense?  What about the little Stanford thug in CA that raped the woman and the sentencing judge said jail was too harsh for this kid?  Were you hollering double standard then? 

 

You're SO intent on who asked them to leave that you're missing the point. They WERE asked to leave and didn't. They wound up in cuffs because of bad behavior/non-compliance. Do you REALLY think that they WEREN'T asked to leave. Grab at straws much?  I think Starbucks should impose a cover charge, at the door, that will be taken off the bill when the bill is paid. Looks like America might have to change because of bad behavior. It actually already has. 

 

[Horsefly]

26 minutes ago, LeftOnBase said:

You're SO intent on who asked them to leave that you're missing the point. They WERE asked to leave and didn't. They wound up in cuffs because of bad behavior/non-compliance. Do you REALLY think that they WEREN'T asked to leave. Grab at straws much?  I think Starbucks should impose a cover charge, at the door, that will be taken off the bill when the bill is paid. Looks like America might have to change because of bad behavior. It actually already has. 

 

The incidents are 2 separate events.  This all went viral bc the cops were called and showed up in mass. The focus has always been on what led to the calling of the police and it is a he-said-she-said scenario.

lastly, the DA determined  not to press charges as the evidence of a crime committed was lacking. (That has been reporting from the DA himself)  That speaks volumes in and of itself.  You have to look at all things that transpired.

do you know any new facts today that happened between the men and the mgr?  You are not one step closer in wrapping this up, so why keep repeating?

anyways, I'm only replying bc you've quoted me, but this issue has been beaten to death.  

 

[LeftOnBase]

12 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

The incidents are 2 separate events.  This all went viral bc the cops were called and showed up in mass. The focus has always been on what led to the calling of the police and it is a he-said-she-said scenario.

lastly, the DA determined  not to press charges as the evidence of a crime committed was lacking. (That has been reporting from the DA himself)  That speaks volumes in and of itself.  You have to look at all things that transpired.

do you know any new facts today that happened between the men and the mgr?  You are not one step closer in wrapping this up, so why keep repeating?

anyways, I'm only replying bc you've quoted me, but this issue has been beaten to death.  

 

So, they weren't asked to leave? If I'm asked to leave a business and defiantly stay, I'm trespassing. There's NO rocket science to it. Yes, it has been beaten like a dead horse but the defending STILL rears it's ugly head. Trespassing IS a crime, once asked to leave. It's a crime no matter WHO decides to quell the storm. If you think that these men were in the right, more power to ya'. 

[Horsefly]

15 minutes ago, LeftOnBase said:

So, they weren't asked to leave? If I'm asked to leave a business and defiantly stay, I'm trespassing. There's NO rocket science to it. Yes, it has been beaten like a dead horse but the defending STILL rears it's ugly head. Trespassing IS a crime, once asked to leave. It's a crime no matter WHO decides to quell the storm. If you think that these men were in the right, more power to ya'. 

I didn't say the men were right,I've said that many times already.  I DONT KNOW all the facts to be definitive, I only have questions.

if they were defiant with the police then they can arrest and charge based on that evidence alone, they don't need Starbucks input AT ALL.  But yet, the DA chose not to charge them...long before the video went viral so we can't say it was to save face or some other political nonesense.  The question you should be asking is why did the DA say there was a lack of evidence a crime was even committed?

go back and find that out, then get back to us.

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

20 minutes ago, LeftOnBase said:

So, they weren't asked to leave? If I'm asked to leave a business and defiantly stay, I'm trespassing. There's NO rocket science to it. Yes, it has been beaten like a dead horse but the defending STILL rears it's ugly head. Trespassing IS a crime, once asked to leave. It's a crime no matter WHO decides to quell the storm. If you think that these men were in the right, more power to ya'. 

Maybe one day people will address  why they were asked to leave in the first place....TWO minutes after entering

 

then take your white arse to ANY Starbucks... don’t buy anything... and see if ANYONE asks you to leave within a HOUR

 

geesh... these people dig deep to justify their ignorance and  stupidity 

[LeftOnBase]

56 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

I didn't say the men were right,I've said that many times already.  I DONT KNOW all the facts to be definitive, I only have questions.

if they were defiant with the police then they can arrest and charge based on that evidence alone, they don't need Starbucks input AT ALL.  But yet, the DA chose not to charge them...long before the video went viral so we can't say it was to save face or some other political nonesense.  The question you should be asking is why did the DA say there was a lack of evidence a crime was even committed?

go back and find that out, then get back to us.

Trespassing IS a crime. Asked to leave and didn't. The DA took the Starbucks' CEO's stance. A victory for the double standard. Congrats.

[Horsefly]

4 minutes ago, LeftOnBase said:

Trespassing IS a crime. Asked to leave and didn't. The DA took the Starbucks' CEO's stance. A victory for the double standard. Congrats.

Oh geez, the DA decided long before it became viral, they were not influenced by the CEO when he publically spoke on this issue 2 days after it happened.  The men were released about 6 hours of their arrest.  The nation wasn't aware of the case that early

You DONT know more than the DA, why did he say this was pretty much a big nothing burger?

so the DA said there was lack of evidence for a crime and the CEO stated calling the police in that circumstance was not company policy...but yet folks like you know better.  😂