Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, Horsefly said: [...] the DA would have never said there was "no evidence" if there was none. simply stating they refused to press charges would have sufficed. Why would you think that? The mere fact that someone refuses to press charges isn't itself always sufficient to show that a crime hadn't been committed. Sometimes that DA will prosecute someone even when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. But if the crime in question is trespassing, and if the evidence of the crime is that a Starbucks employee had asked them to leave, then the second that Starbucks declines to press charges, the state no longer has evidence that the crime in question had been committed, since the evidence of the crime is Starbucks' claim that they had asked the guys to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 Just now, Belly Bob said: Why would you think that? The mere fact that someone refuses to press charges isn't itself always sufficient to show that a crime hadn't been committed. Sometimes that DA will prosecute someone even when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. But if the crime in question is trespassing, and if the evidence of the crime is that a Starbucks employee had asked them to leave, then the second that Starbucks declines to press charges, the state no longer has sufficient evidence that the crime in question had been, since the evidence itself would be Starbucks claim that they had asked the guys to leave. Individuals don't press charges, legal entities do. They refused to make an official complaint is more like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Individuals don't press charges, legal entities do. They refused to make an official complaint is more like it. What is this supposed to show in the context of trying to establish whether the black guys were treated unfairly because of the color of their skin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Belly Bob said: What is this supposed to show in the context of trying to establish whether the black guys were treated unfairly because of the color of their skin? Well, it could bring credibility into the employees claim to trespassing and the allegation of asking them to leave. look, you're a smart guy there is not going to be a smoking gun incriminating them definitively on racial bias unless the employeees admit to it and that's not happening, so no need to keep using that as a marker, when reasonable assumptions is all we can work with, gotta run, will talk later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Just a side note here....but extremely easy to highlight this conflict... Q) Who's right here ??? A) Nooner's an idiot.... Now we have had this conversation many times, and as you keep responding to others with your haphazardly styled 'homemade quotes', misapplying it at all the best times, I will explain again..... Does not 'science' tell you that every man has their own opinion? Wouldn't your 'priest at church' necessarily tell you that you must 'respect' your fellow man? There in lies your true juxtaposition. As you so aptly state, and simply put, YOU are simply not respecting that person's right to be his own 'dolt'.... It's a huge fatal leap (logic, Science, and all) to go so far as to deny the existence of something, because it does not fit 'your standard' of methodology of 'non-dolthood'. Removing out of sheer ignorance, and denying 'dolthood' from your next 'scientific' application of 'humans'....will most certainly give you 'skewed results' .... Now you probably believe it is right to devalue 'dolthood' opinions in some instances, and certainly not make wrong choices based off those....and I would most certainly agree. But a more proper way of doing so, could easily be accomplished with some corrections to your 'homemade quote' : "You cannot SHOULD NOT have an opinion that conflicts with fact, you can SHOULD only have an opinion in absence of established fact." What YOU are telling others with yours, is that they have zero input, and that 'they' will never even be considered (even more repugnantly with an air of 'i am right while you are wrong', the whole time relating a pure falsehood to your audience...you actually think that everyone else does not realize that they actually have their own opinion?), where instead you should be saying I see your opinion, and here is where I believe it to be untrue. "I see your opinion, and it will be taken under consideration" is the baseline level of 'respect' that I believe Nut is referring to, and a baseline standard you so proudly toss in the trash... Now maybe this is only being done... INTENTIONALLY by spreading falsehoods to PROVOKE....but then you would be no better than what Nut does consistently....would you not? you are a very sick person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sportsnut said: Stop BOB You can't tell me what to do! You don't have any authority over me! Do you remember that, when you used to tell people that they couldn't tell you what you should do, because they had no authority over you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 16 hours ago, Belly Bob said: 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. I understand your belief that pre-judgement exists, and as such cannot be factored out of any (some might even say every) situation... But simply put, the way I view Ron's "where's the problem here?" (that you were replying to) is that many times there is no problem...Certainly more so than people today like to believe at least... My view is more of 'Racism exists' ....and 'might' even have been in play in the situation above. But even if that were true, and given what is reported, any and all pre-judgments in this case (as reported to my knowledge) are rendered moot.... WHY?....because even if every single person in this scenario was 'feeling' all that pre-judgement, the standards of 'decency' (for lack of a better term) have been met here as the ACTIONS of all those involved here (by what's known), are the same very 'equal' actions that any person would have received regardless of whatever pre-judgements existed. Now if another chunk of 'actually verifiable' information comes in to show 'unequal' treatment (like say any non-black being able to freely use their services and bathroom or trespass)....."Houston we have a problem"....And you might even find me the first one pointing to it, or trying to correct it....But injecting 'racism exists and everyone's racist' into arguments where the actions involved are equal is the farce many find so objectionable... I don't know why people seem to have a hard time coming to this resolution... Perhaps I am wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: I understand your belief that pre-judgement exists, and as such cannot be factored out of any (some might even say every) situation... But simply put, the way I view Ron's "where's the problem here?" (that you were replying to) is that many times there is no problem...Certainly more so than people today like to believe at least... My view is more of 'Racism exists' ....and 'might' even have been in play in the situation above. But even if that were true, and given what is reported, any and all pre-judgments in this case (as reported to my knowledge) are rendered moot.... WHY?....because even if every single person in this scenario was 'feeling' all that pre-judgement, the standards of 'decency' (for lack of a better term) have been met here as the ACTIONS of all those involved here (by what's known), are the same very 'equal' actions that any person would have received regardless of whatever pre-judgements existed. Now if another chunk of 'actually verifiable' information comes in to show 'unequal' treatment (like say any non-black being able to freely use their services and bathroom or trespass)....."Houston we have a problem"....And you might even find me the first one pointing to it, or trying to correct it....But injecting 'racism exists and everyone's racist' into arguments where the actions involved are equal is the farce many find so objectionable... I don't know why people seem to have a hard time coming to this resolution... Perhaps I am wrong? I think we may agree. I was being sarcastic. I don't doubt that people have implicit biases and that those play out in real life and often lead people to be treated unfairly on the basis of their race alone. But the evidence that that is what happened in this particular case seems pretty slight to me. And therefore the attention that this case has received and the inferences that some people have drawn from it and the actions that some people are calling for in response to it all seem to well outstrip the available evidence. I think that Horsefly himself may also agree with some of this -- he said something about how the case has received more attention than it deserves -- though I wouldn't want to put words into his mouth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sportsnut said: Yes but you are creating a picture of yourself that does your image no good. It also speaks highly of you being understanding and accepting of fact. I'm not too concerned about my image. But I do appreciate the compliment that I am able to understand and accept facts. That's a nice thing for you to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlockIsHot Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Horsefly said: then why did the DA say there was no evidence to press charges? Just bc some claimed they were asked to leave doesnt mean it actually happened,. Asking someone to leave does not always equate to charges. They wanted them to leave. The police enforced it. They left. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballGuy Posted April 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, TheBlockIsHot said: They were asked to leave and didn't. Nothing to do with race. When you are asked to leave, you leave. If you don't, you are trespassing. End of story. Spare me the racial shit. feeling uncomfortable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 49 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Negative, that's not what I quoted. The DA, clearly stated there was no evidence that a crime was committed. I've filed charges before and the first thing they did was do a cursory view and told me what their intitial thoughts were and what charges I could file.(the public typically doesn't know what legal charges to file) Yeah, except Starbuck's declined to press charges (out of the goodness of their own hearts) according to the reports I read first.... Perhaps that CYA review from the police was to indicate that they saw no reason to think anyone was 'treated unfairly' as well.. So why do you try and claim false justification for the actions of the trespassers (and try and promote those as true)? By using those very same people who rightfully performed their duties in time of trespass, are you not intentionally spreading falsehoods? If this take (and your own actions) are not true....I would Love to hear you explanation on how these people involved were NOT trespassing..... Popcorn time? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballGuy Posted April 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: Why? Appearance. No other white person (from what we see) are big, intimidating people dressed in "urban" clothing. I believe that their appearance made the manager uncomfortable from the jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballGuy Posted April 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: I once called the police after a crazy ex bit me hard enough to draw blood after I had asked her many, many times to leave my apartment. She left before the cops arrived. They asked me take my shirt off and noted that I clearly had been bitten and they asked if I wanted to press charges. I said no. And they left. The fact that she wasn't charged with crime doesn't show that she didn't commit one. It shows that the state is rarely interested in spending its resources on prosecuting crimes when the alleged victims are not themselves interested in pressing charges. If I were you, I woulda pressed charges on that bitch. Oh yeah, I woulda been real petty that day lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: I think we may agree. I was being sarcastic. I don't doubt that people have implicit biases and that those play out in real life and often lead people to be treated unfairly on the basis of their race alone. But the evidence that that is what happened in this particular case seems pretty slight to me. And therefore the attention that this case has received and the inferences that some people have drawn from it and the actions that some people are calling for in response to it all seem to well outstrip the available evidence. I think that Horsefly himself may also agree with some of this, though I wouldn't want to put words into his mouth. Damn dude, getting caught up in your sarcasm is becoming a bad habit LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, FootballGuy said: Appearance. No other white person (from what we see) are big, intimidating people dressed in "urban" clothing. I believe that their appearance made the manager uncomfortable from the jump. Sad way to go thru life son... Worse when you accuse others of your own faults ( even if, and especially if, prematurely). You pre-judge worse than those you accuse and degrade for 'supposedly' doing the same.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballGuy Posted April 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Sad way to go thru life son... Worse when you accuse others of your own faults ( even if, and especially if, prematurely). You pre-judge worse than those you accuse and degrade for 'supposedly' doing the same.... How is that sad when it's true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 Just now, FootballGuy said: How is that sad when it's it's true? That you believe it to be true, does not necessarily make it so... That is the cancer of pre-judgement... That is why you will hate people or turn away, where in many cases you should not... This is definitely a loss in your life...which I do consider sad... Hope this explains my rationale... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 Just now, Sportsnut said: Not what happened. The police said no crime was committed. “Starbucks stands firmly against discrimination or racial profiling,” he said. “Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia Police Department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.” Word's from the CEO Think about this. If this happened with two young white men, would anything but charges have been filed? Starbucks is aware of the confirmation bias at play so in a strategic decision they decided the lest harmful way to handle the situation was to shaft the store manager and crew at the one location. That is how I read (into) it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sportsnut said: Not what happened. The police said no crime was committed. “Starbucks stands firmly against discrimination or racial profiling,” he said. “Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia Police Department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.” Word's from the CEO Nothing but side by side positioning, hoping that others will misinterpret... A common theme and practice being executed these days.... Why do you always promote falsehoods ......thinking it somehow helps... You need to explain to me and everyone else, how YOU can reconcile in your mind, that you believe these people were not trespassing. Or simply admit to everyone...... that they in fact were... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 @Sportsnut and Ill tell you something else.' There are real, serious, systemic issues that are not in the headlines (or you postings) that need to be challenged and understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, Sportsnut said: Not what happened. The police said no crime was committed. “Starbucks stands firmly against discrimination or racial profiling,” he said. “Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia Police Department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.” Word's from the CEO What special insight do you think the CEO of Starbucks has? You might well think that he's an unreliable source precisely because his has a professional obligation to try to mitigate the bad press that his company has received because of this event. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 Just now, Sportsnut said: If the cops say no crime was committed, why do you continue to label them as criminals? Where, when did the police say this? I thought they said no charges would be filed (presumably because Starbucks did not file them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFORDGAWOLVES Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Belly Bob said: I suspect that this is relevant and important: people are hypersensitive to these sorts of events because of the peripheral issues which are not to be minimized. I think it is a complex issue, but I don't care for the claim that it's hopeless. It's a feeding frenzy for the lemmings, it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 24 minutes ago, FootballGuy said: If I were you, I woulda pressed charges on that bitch. Oh yeah, I woulda been real petty that day lol. We dated for another year, my man. She was a wild one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.