Arrested for being black....at starbucks?

[noonereal]

Just now, Horsefly said:

Your only misstep was assuming I would be a part. 

We all make mistakes and I am a bit freer in word than you would like. (we have come across this in other threads) 

You seem to be very literal. I almost feel a need to write technically instead of posting like we are sitting on my porch  when I quote you.

I will try to keep this in mind. 

In court I am exact in phrase so know I can do it. 

[noonereal]

Just now, Sportsnut said:

And your position peaks volumns

what is your take away of me? 

Volume 1 to start? 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

3 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

The authorities have determined that no crime took place.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

You and your bullshit, apparently.

Feeling froggy?

[RedZone]

6 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

Can't afford common sense?

I have NO idea what you are trying to say which is the case 99.99% of the time. BUT, maybe you can add "Sitting at Starbucks not buying anything" to your How to Make White People Uncomfortable 

You freakin moron....

[noonereal]

Just now, Drummer61 said:

put on Dred locks,

Are dred locks a sign of something nefarious to you? 

[Horsefly]

5 minutes ago, noonereal said:

 

We all make mistakes and  I am a bit freer in word than you would like. (we have come across this in other threads) 

You seem to be very literal. I almost feel a need to write technically instead of posting like we are sitting on my porch  when I quote you.

I will try to keep this in mind. 

In court I am exact in phrase so know I can do it. 

You only think you are freer bc it's the Internet.  (Anonymity creates brave hearts) I've said this before, in face to face in normal discourse, you would not be so "free" in what you toss around and how you say things.  It is what is it though.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

You only think you are freer bc it's the Internet.  (Anonymity creates brave hearts) I've said this before, in face to face in normal discourse, you would not be so "free" in what you toss around and how you say things.  It is what is it though.

This is very true, the face to face is a very different interaction. I'm hopefull that I would convey the same message in person...but that's unrealistic.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 minute ago, Sportsnut said:

Getting angry?

I buy wolf tickets.

And my pocket is full !!!!!!!

I. Am. Not. Mad.

You?

Hahaha

[noonereal]

Just now, Sportsnut said:

I don't know you well enough to give you anything other than what I think of your opinion on subjects that we have shared here.

Given that, I know you are quick to change your view depending on who the opposite  side is coming from.

Read my posts in this thread, please. Thanks

Also, Thanks for your take on my posts. 

I do pride myself at not being closed minded and that does demand that as new facts are presented one reevaluates so I can understand why you think of me as you do.

You will also find in areas of established science I hold firm when block heads come at me with "opinion."

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

Just now, Sportsnut said:

Why the period after each word?

Something has you panties in a bunch.

Emphasis.  Slowing. It. Down. For. Emphasis.

[noonereal]

Just now, Horsefly said:

You only think you are freer bc it's the Internet.  (Anonymity creates brave hearts) I've said this before, in face to face in normal discourse, you would not be so "free" in what you toss around and how you say things.  It is what is it though.

????????????

WTF????????

I think you are way off base if I read this right? 

You have been, sensitive, the last few days, if you have some kind of problem with me, PM me or reply here. 

If I miss-read this post, WTF do you mean? 

I have said ZERO insulting to you. 

In the TX threads you get the standard, never with malice nor disrespect. 

 

[noonereal]

Just now, Sportsnut said:

You don't respect a man's opinion, you don't respect the man.

You cannot have an opinion that conflicts with fact, you can only have an opinion in absence of established fact.

As to respect, you would need define that because I would think one a dolt who did this. Many do. They think opinion is acceptable for a want that is juxtaposed to science. I would however be courteous and friendly. (like I am to the priest at church for example)

[FootballGuy]

4 hours ago, noonereal said:

Tell me what you saw in the video. 

I saw two men being handcuffed and escorted out without incident. 

The video offered no context. 

Did you not hear the witnesses in the background? And clearly you didn't read the story. 

[noonereal]

Just now, FootballGuy said:

Did you not hear the witnesses in the background? And clearly you didn't read the story. 

reads my posts of this morning in this thread for clarification and perspective.

thanks

[FootballGuy]

Just now, noonereal said:

reads my posts of this morning in this thread for clarification and perspective.

thanks

No need to. Just don't see why you'd question the arrests when you saw the video..... or maybe not.  

[noonereal]

31 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

2nd time you have had to tell someone to re-read your post.

This is why I made the comment I did when you asked me to.

2 faced or flip flop or swinging both ways.

Hard to tell

neither poster had read them in the first place. (is whAT I immediately thought given what they asked me) 

i did not ask they reread i asked that they read them.

If clarification were then necessary I'd oblige. 

no point in writing the same thing twice. 

[noonereal]

36 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

Not true. 

I was the other poster and I have read them all. 

Then I am surprised you did not understand.

I am not always the best at explaining myself. 

 

[ron169]

So to sum it up. Male subjects go to a restaurant, sit down and don’t order anything. Period of time goes by one subject goes to the bathroom. Management at said restaurant tell subjects to either order something or leave. Subjects refuse to do both. Management calls law enforcement. Law enforcement arrives, speaks to management, then tell subjects to leave. Subjects refuse, forcing law enforcement to take them into custody for trespassing. Management decides later not to prosecute. Without a victim willing to prosecute, law enforcement releases subjects with out charging them.

 

so what’s the problem here?

[FootballGuy]

So is it safe to say that two black men made the starbucks' employees uncomfortable by sitting in starbucks for an extended period of time? Because if so, that's weak as fuck....especially when the other people in the building had no problem with the two black men sitting there. 

[Horsefly]

6 hours ago, noonereal said:

????????????

WTF????????

I think you are way off base if I read this right? 

You have been, sensitive, the last few days, if you have some kind of problem with me, PM me or reply here. 

If I miss-read this post, WTF do you mean? 

I have said ZERO insulting to you. 

In the TX threads you get the standard, never with malice nor disrespect. 

 

Nor calm down with all these "wtf" and question marks.  I'm talking generally, you are only freer to post bc you are anonymous and not talking to people face to face. You aren't the only one, many on here do the same 

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, Sportsnut said:

Understandable.

Now wasn't that easy?

Actually, no. 

[noonereal]

44 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Nor calm down with all these "wtf" and question marks.  I'm talking generally, you are only freer to post bc you are anonymous and not talking to people face to face. You aren't the only one, many on here do the same 

OK. 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, ron169 said:

So to sum it up. Male subjects go to a restaurant, sit down and don’t order anything. Period of time goes by one subject goes to the bathroom. Management at said restaurant tell subjects to either order something or leave. Subjects refuse to do both. Management calls law enforcement. Law enforcement arrives, speaks to management, then tell subjects to leave. Subjects refuse, forcing law enforcement to take them into custody for trespassing. Management decides later not to prosecute. Without a victim willing to prosecute, law enforcement releases subjects with out charging them.

 

so what’s the problem here?

It's a good description of the event, given the available evidence, without any added interpretation.

The problem, I think, is that you're refusing to acknowledge the obvious, namely, that the fact of the blackness of the two men was not incidental to the event. 

I know that there isn't a ton of hard evidence to support that claim, but that's entirely beside the point.

[noonereal]

12 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

I think, is that you're refusing to acknowledge the obvious, namely, that the fact of the blackness of the two men was not incidental to the event. 

that is an assumption that I am not sure I agree with 

We may never know the answer.

12 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

I know that there isn't a ton of hard evidence to support that claim, but that's entirely beside the point.

Never heard of evidence being irrelevant before. 

 

[noonereal]

12 hours ago, Drummer61 said:

Sissybucks

Just what is it about Starbucks that makes it "sissy?"