Police response to N.J. mall fight sparks outrage after Black teen cuffed as white teen watches

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only somebody hopelessly mired in her own bias could possibly have used that language to describe how the white boy was handled by the female cop.

The female officer is the salient observation. She should have cuffed the White kid but clearly feared doing that and chose to assist the guy cop who didn’t need her help. Lady cops in physical situations sometimes lead to tragedy or comedy.

It wasn't racism, let my sexism explain what went wrong.

 

[Toni]

Blacks: Cops treat us differently.
Whites: We don't believe you.
*video evidence of altercation between white and black youth shows Cops explicitly treating the two differently*
Whites: *points* Look, a red herring!

The black youth and the white youth were treated differently in the video by the cops. Do you believe that the only reason for this must be explicit discrimination by the cops against black people?

I don’t care what label is used to describe why they were treated differently. The point is they WERE treated differently.

Deny it happens and when shown to happen, red herring city.

But the reason why this white youth and this black youth were treated differently to each other is important.

So why do you think the boy on bottom was treated differently than the boy on top in that fight?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Right-wingers: You guys are focused too much on identity politics!
Also, right-wingers: It's not that the Black kid was mistreated, but instead that females being the weaker sex, the female officer, couldn't equally treat the other kid.

 

[Toni]

I watched the video twice. To me, it looked as if the cop certainly treated the Black teen very differently than the White teen was treated.

Nobody is disputing that they were treated differently.

Yesterday, I was treated differently from the lady ahead of me at the grocery checkout.

I had a ton of stuff. She had two things. I let her go ahead in line. Then she spent awhile finding her debit card. She started looking for it after the checkout clerk said that'll be $12.17 or something. I had cash in my hand.
People get treated differently all the time.
Just happens.
Tom

That actually doesn't demonstrate the point you intended but instead the opposite point--that there are reasons for differences in outcomes. For example, you observed that she had two things whereas you had a whole bunch. Therefore, you observed a difference and made a deliberate decision to treat her differently than yourself, giving her priority to go first. That does not in any way mean that "Just happens."

You can't use an argument like Goddittit because things happen for reasons, while of course we sometimes don't know the reasons, but the reasons are still there. There's no "Just happens."

Imagine there's a white teacher. She has two students, one White and one Black but are otherwise the same. Both students get an A on an assignment. She rewards them by giving the White student 10 chocolate chip cookies and by giving the Black student 1 chocolate chip cookie. You can't just say differences just happen and shrug.

On the other hand, if in the hypothetical, there are other differences, like she owed one of the students 9 cookies, then you can point to that as a reason for a difference in the cookies she gives. But that's also the opposite of "Just happens."

The salient point in Tom's example is that HE decided to treat someone nicely, and to put her ahead of himself. I may have the subtext wrong but it appears that he has some resentment about it as he had to wait longer than he anticipated as she had fumbled with her debit card. He was a nice guy and it gave him a tiny little bite on the rear. There is zero evidence in the story as Tom told it that the clerk treated Tom and the lady differently.

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Almost all of us can look back to our school days and come up with examples of kids who were treated differently than other kids, for good and for bad. Some kids were always in trouble over things that the teacher's more favored students were not in trouble for. I write this as someone who was almost always (with two exceptions) one of the favorite kids in the class. I saw other kids treated differently for no good reason that I could see and I saw kids who were actually quite smart treated as though they were dumb and I saw them underperform because why try if you are never going to be recognized? FWIW, I will remind everyone that except for the first year and a half of my schooling grades 1-12, I only went to school with white kids. I'm only talking about white kids who were treated poorly by white teachers. Twice I can remember getting in trouble at school, ever, and once was because I was sticking up for a boy who was getting in trouble for breaking something that got broken on a day that he had missed school. Teacher never forgave me for that and I spent the rest of the year on her shit list.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone here has such examples. You may have been the favored kid as I almost always was at school or you may have been the one who was constantly in trouble for anything and everything or maybe you were somewhere in between. But we all saw those kids and some of us were those kids who were treated unfairly, sometimes to a very serious degree.

IRL, black kids are treated like those kids we all remember who were singled out for criticism and harsher treatment by teachers--only worse. There is a ton of data documenting this and the fact that this begins in preschool.

 

[TomC]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

All I'm saying is that the reason the fight started is irrelevant to the racism part.

Ok cool, let's try this then.


The cause of the fight is important to the police's investigation (not racism) as they need to know what caused the altercation to appropriately administer the law. Upon arrival, they handcuffed one perpetrator & not the other for fighting. When (if they did so at all) the police discovered through witness accounts, that Z'kye (the one they handcuffed) was defending a friend, and as a result had to defend himself (which is why the fight started) what would have been the appropriate way for the police to administer the law? The police detained K'kye and not the aggressor.

What is your non-racism-related reason for how the police administered the law in the incident?

My guess is the police detained Z’Kye for his safety since the aggressor is still at large.

Did you read anything in my post besides the one sentence you quoted?

Here let me refresh your memory:

All the rest of this post I agree with. It's exactly what makes the racism part a nearly inescapable conclusion. Why didn't the cops ask around? There were obviously a bunch of people there to ask questions about the fight.
Tom

Tom

mutters florida man under his breath

You said the reason the fight started was irrelevant to the racism part so I took it that you misunderstood what I said/asked as you seem to think I said that how the fight started was racism-related. I was trying to clarify to you what my question actually was.

I'm still looking for a non-racism-related reason for why the police administered the law the way they did. Trausti offered a sexist one though I don't think the female officer violating Z'kye's civil rights with sexism would hold up in court. Taxpayers need a better argument to protect their wallets from the incoming civil suit.

Edit: And yes I didn't actually ask the question until after the misunderstanding but the initial comment that started this miscommunication was related.

 

[Toni]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

Now that I've let my hair go gray, I no longer look a decade or more younger than my age which doesn't bother me except that I get reminded all the time why I ever covered the gray as it came in in the first place. Old people get treated differently. Not better. Condescended to, all the time. Person ahead of me in line fumbles with whatever card they're using, eventually pays. No eye rolls or harsh looks or smirks or condescending smiles. I can tell that they are older than I am (we old folks recognize each other) but they still color their hair so they are perceived as not old. My turn: My pen falls out of my check book (I know I know but my grocery store still allows checks and I'm always faster with my check than most people are with their cards--and a check puts more $ in the hands of the grocery store and doesn't charge a fee to handle the transaction to either of us) and I fumble for a second and catch the faintly amused looks exchanged by the college kid who is ringing up my groceries and the one who is bagging them. Checker gives me some sweet reassurances and in return, I don't say anything back except thank you and yes, I'd like the receipt and no thank you I can take my cart to my car, no need for you to brave the nasty weather. Lots of presumed incompetence on the part of young people dealing with the gray haired. I really don't want to start coloring my hair again but I am sometimes a little tempted. I can still carry it off.....

Of course this is an extremely minor annoyance. I've seen how darker skinned people are treated.

 

[Toni]

All I'm saying is that the reason the fight started is irrelevant to the racism part.

Ok cool, let's try this then.


The cause of the fight is important to the police's investigation (not racism) as they need to know what caused the altercation to appropriately administer the law. Upon arrival, they handcuffed one perpetrator & not the other for fighting. When (if they did so at all) the police discovered through witness accounts, that Z'kye (the one they handcuffed) was defending a friend, and as a result had to defend himself (which is why the fight started) what would have been the appropriate way for the police to administer the law? The police detained K'kye and not the aggressor.

What is your non-racism-related reason for how the police administered the law in the incident?

My guess is the police detained Z’Kye for his safety since the aggressor is still at large.

Did you read anything in my post besides the one sentence you quoted?

Here let me refresh your memory:

All the rest of this post I agree with. It's exactly what makes the racism part a nearly inescapable conclusion. Why didn't the cops ask around? There were obviously a bunch of people there to ask questions about the fight.
Tom

Tom

mutters florida man under his breath

You said the reason the fight started was irrelevant to the racism part so I took it that you misunderstood what I said/asked as you seem to think I said that how the fight started was racism-related. I was trying to clarify to you what my question actually was.

I'm still looking for a non-racism-related reason for why the police administered the law the way they did. Trausti offered a sexist one though I don't think the female officer violating Z'kye's civil rights with sexism would hold up in court. Taxpayers need a better argument to protect their wallets from the incoming civil suit.

My personal interpretation of the two officers by gender: The female officer sat the white boy on the bench somewhat forcefully but not out of line with what any parent might do separating spatting children. She sat next to him momentarily, patted him on the chest and then went to help her male partner. The way she acted with the white boy seemed like how most parents and most women would act with most teens when breaking up a fight. Separate, calm down. She saw her partner on top of the other boy, who is black, and immediately went to help her partner. She may/probably did not see exactly what transpired between the male officer (white, I think) and the black boy who was on bottom when the police intervened. She may have assumed that her partner needed extra help because the boy he had was fighting against the officer's attempts to restrain him. The video shows that the boy was NOT resisting or fighting back. I can't hear what is being said but from my angle, my perception is that her intent was to separate and calm down the boys and to back up her partner. The male officer seemed to have made an assumption that the black boy was going to resist./was resisting/was violent and that perception was not based at all on what was shown in the video. The male officer seemed to show racial bias. The female officer was backing up her partner automatically, and I assume, per training.

Obviously, kids should not fight and if they do, should not do so at a mall. But I am struck, once again, at how normal, if less than ideal, teenage behavior is criminalized. What was the need to arrest either boy? Separate/calm down: yes. Verify no weapons: I recognize that this is necessary nowadays. Escort off of mall property/call BOTH sets of parents? Appropriate. Even if you were certain one boy was the aggressor and the other boy was the victim, one would think that officers would call both sets of parents to ensure that the victim gets to leave safely and is not set upon by the aggressor and/or his friends.

 

[southernhybrid]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

Now that I've let my hair go gray, I no longer look a decade or more younger than my age which doesn't bother me except that I get reminded all the time why I ever covered the gray as it came in in the first place. Old people get treated differently. Not better. Condescended to, all the time. Person ahead of me in line fumbles with whatever card they're using, eventually pays. No eye rolls or harsh looks or smirks or condescending smiles. I can tell that they are older than I am (we old folks recognize each other) but they still color their hair so they are perceived as not old. My turn: My pen falls out of my check book (I know I know but my grocery store still allows checks and I'm always faster with my check than most people are with their cards--and a check puts more $ in the hands of the grocery store and doesn't charge a fee to handle the transaction to either of us) and I fumble for a second and catch the faintly amused looks exchanged by the college kid who is ringing up my groceries and the one who is bagging them. Checker gives me some sweet reassurances and in return, I don't say anything back except thank you and yes, I'd like the receipt and no thank you I can take my cart to my car, no need for you to brave the nasty weather. Lots of presumed incompetence on the part of young people dealing with the gray haired. I really don't want to start coloring my hair again but I am sometimes a little tempted. I can still carry it off.....

Of course this is an extremely minor annoyance. I've seen how darker skinned people are treated.

That's why my favorite social activity is at our wonderful local senior center, where we all view each other as equals. Sometimes I'm the only White woman in the group. It's cool. I've met so many awesome Black women, along with some wonderful White women. Men never last in our aerobic group. They just can't keep up with us. Still, we do welcome them to try. I have to admit that ageism and racism aren't big problems in my small city, which is one of the main reasons why I love it so much.

But, one time, a car with 4 young Black teens was pulled over by the police for having a broken tail light. We were on our way to a local seafood fast food place, and we witnessed the entire episode. We saw one of our favorite workers run out to the car and argue with the police. It was her son who was driving. They insisted on searching the four boys in the car. The woman we know is sharp, and has a background in law enforcement, and she knew that what they were about to do was in violation of the 4th amendment, and she told them so. The cops actually told her that they were supposed to search all of the occupants of any car they stopped if it had more than 2 young Black males in it. We were furious and offered a lot of support to the mother of the boys. So, even in a very racially diverse city, where most people get along, you can have some racist police. Luckily nobody was harmed during the stop, but how would any of you White males like it, if you were stopped for a very trivial traffic violation and then told you needed to be searched because you were White? This type of harassment needs to stop!

 

[Gospel]

All I'm saying is that the reason the fight started is irrelevant to the racism part.

Ok cool, let's try this then.


The cause of the fight is important to the police's investigation (not racism) as they need to know what caused the altercation to appropriately administer the law. Upon arrival, they handcuffed one perpetrator & not the other for fighting. When (if they did so at all) the police discovered through witness accounts, that Z'kye (the one they handcuffed) was defending a friend, and as a result had to defend himself (which is why the fight started) what would have been the appropriate way for the police to administer the law? The police detained K'kye and not the aggressor.

What is your non-racism-related reason for how the police administered the law in the incident?

My guess is the police detained Z’Kye for his safety since the aggressor is still at large.

Did you read anything in my post besides the one sentence you quoted?

Here let me refresh your memory:

All the rest of this post I agree with. It's exactly what makes the racism part a nearly inescapable conclusion. Why didn't the cops ask around? There were obviously a bunch of people there to ask questions about the fight.
Tom

Tom

mutters florida man under his breath

You said the reason the fight started was irrelevant to the racism part so I took it that you misunderstood what I said/asked as you seem to think I said that how the fight started was racism-related. I was trying to clarify to you what my question actually was.

I'm still looking for a non-racism-related reason for why the police administered the law the way they did. Trausti offered a sexist one though I don't think the female officer violating Z'kye's civil rights with sexism would hold up in court. Taxpayers need a better argument to protect their wallets from the incoming civil suit.

My personal interpretation of the two officers by gender: The female officer sat the white boy on the bench somewhat forcefully but not out of line with what any parent might do separating spatting children. She sat next to him momentarily, patted him on the chest and then went to help her male partner. The way she acted with the white boy seemed like how most parents and most women would act with most teens when breaking up a fight. Separate, calm down. She saw her partner on top of the other boy, who is black, and immediately went to help her partner. She may/probably did not see exactly what transpired between the male officer (white, I think) and the black boy who was on bottom when the police intervened. She may have assumed that her partner needed extra help because the boy he had was fighting against the officer's attempts to restrain him. The video shows that the boy was NOT resisting or fighting back. I can't hear what is being said but from my angle, my perception is that her intent was to separate and calm down the boys and to back up her partner. The male officer seemed to have made an assumption that the black boy was going to resist./was resisting/was violent and that perception was not based at all on what was shown in the video. The male officer seemed to show racial bias. The female officer was backing up her partner automatically, and I assume, per training.

Obviously, kids should not fight and if they do, should not do so at a mall. But I am struck, once again, at how normal, if less than ideal, teenage behavior is criminalized. What was the need to arrest either boy? Separate/calm down: yes. Verify no weapons: I recognize that this is necessary nowadays. Escort off of mall property/call BOTH sets of parents? Appropriate. Even if you were certain one boy was the aggressor and the other boy was the victim, one would think that officers would call both sets of parents to ensure that the victim gets to leave safely and is not set upon by the aggressor and/or his friends.

That may work on the Jury until cross-examination asks

Prosecutor: "the aggressor seemed confused as to why he wasn't being put in handcuffs, care to explain?
Officer: "well"
Prosecutor: (Interrupting) While you're at it do you mind also explaining why you let the aggressor go and detained the nigger?

OBJECTION YOUR HONOR!! ASKED AND ANSWERED QUESTION!!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

Internalizations of personal differences in treating others is not the same as when a public official, such as a cop, following protocols is treating people, though. That means there is far less room for difference according to law and procedure. Of course, there are theoretical things that could be that could account for a public person or public policies treating two people differently, but no one has enumerated those things, not even what they could be in theory based on reasonable argumentation stemming from documented evidence. So, to sum up, I AGREE that things in life are multi-variate, based on multiple variables and I AGREE that there are sometimes things we do not observe, but in this case we observe a lot of the interaction including what led up to the interaction and there is neither evidence of anything else as yet nor any suggested rational argumentation leading to a difference that would be legal or a valid police procedure. That means that as rational people since we have a lot of data to observe, we can make a probabilistic assessment to say something akin to "this seems like racism" or "probably racism," and it is okay to add a caveat such as "pending seeing the results of the internal affairs investigation."

 

[Worldtraveller]

Do you have a list of the other options for the difference in how the two were treated?

I could come up with a long list of other possible reasons.

But since I have very little information that would be an exercise in futility. Why bother indulging myself in unsupported assertions just because they make me feel superior?

I'm not that able to mind read. I'm not inclined to attribute motivation to people I know almost nothing about, based on a bit of "media".

Sorry to be such an oldster.
Tom

You're also not willing to entertain the rather obvious cause at least as a major contributing factor.

Your kneejerk "I'm not gonna judge" disclaimer is transparent bullshit. Your inhetent bias is much worse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

My emphasis. Yes... and blacks have been railing on being treated differently by the cops for a while now. And back to my original point I raised a bit ago... Whites generally don't care what blacks think about how the police treat them, and that Whites must judge for themselves before anything should ever be done about alleged mistreatment.

Even in this situation, which provides a rather comprehensive look at the situation, you are playing the "well, we just don't know" card. As SoHy indicates, the white kid wasn't unfairly treated, sat down and talked to. The black kid was assaulted and arrested, neither which was necessary. And you are saying "well, we just don't know why".

You get struck by a random bullet, you going to sit there and wonder why that bullet struck you or act on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED and get medical attention?

 

[Worldtraveller]

No one's given us a reason to yet.

Why? Why woould I do a flip and a twist and a douple pike to NOT USE the clear evidence?

Do y'all remember when Nicholas Sandmann was convicted(in the court of the internet) of assaulting a Native American elder? Do you remember what the evidence was? It was a bit of video.

The "MAGA hat wearing teen", and his family and school and community, got death threats. I read over 1000 posts on DailyKos alone that were utterly vile.
I still don't believe that Chauvin killed Floyd, I think fentanyl killed Floyd.

No, I don't make up my mind based on modern media, especially social media. There's too much incentive to lie, especially in that extra useful way, the partial truth. It's just too profitable to lie about hot button issues like this. Clickable makes money, a balanced and researched report doesn't.

From the lefties to the righties, dishonest media sells. We live in a post truth media world, where what matters is how much you can push people's buttons. How accurate and complete you story is remains utterly unimportant.
Tom

You're still dodging.

 

[Toni]

Do you have a list of the other options for the difference in how the two were treated?

I could come up with a long list of other possible reasons.

But since I have very little information that would be an exercise in futility. Why bother indulging myself in unsupported assertions just because they make me feel superior?

I'm not that able to mind read. I'm not inclined to attribute motivation to people I know almost nothing about, based on a bit of "media".

Sorry to be such an oldster.
Tom

You're also not willing to entertain the rather obvious cause at least as a major contributing factor.

Your kneejerk "I'm not gonna judge" disclaimer is transparent bullshit. Your inhetent bias is much worse.

I'll jump in: It is *possible* that had the male officer dealt with the white boy, he would have ended up in cuffs and the female officer would have sat the black boy on the bench, patted his chest and then aided her partner in detaining the white boy, who, for convenience' sake, we will assume behaved exactly as the black boy who was actually detained behaved: compliant, not resistant in any way.

It is possible that the differences in how the officers behaved was gender based: the female officer was less physical with 'her' suspect than the male officer. That could be gender based. It could be a difference in parental status: she could be the parent of teenagers (I can't discern her age to tell if this is likely or possible) and he possibly is not a parent and is reacting as more males would react: to strong arm the suspect and in this case, throw him to the ground and cuff him. It is possible that her personality, irrespective of gender, is one of establishing conciliation/ peace making, and his is one of using force. We don't know for certain. I would expect that the records of both officers will be made public(ish) soon enough to give us more information.

 

[Gospel]

The real thing issue is that Tom came up with a poor example to illustrate his point.

Upon rereading, I've realized how poorly I did that.
All I really meant was "People get treated differently all the time. For reasons that might not be obvious to onlookers."

I've let big strapping dudes go ahead of me before because all they had was a gallon of milk. I hate shopping, so when I go I buy a ton of stuff and get it over with. I try to be considerate.
That particular time, the lady reminded me of my dear departed mother-in-law. Especially the part where she seemed surprised by having to pay, and only then started going through her ginormous purse looking for options. I did it for reasons that someone else couldn't have understood if they were just watching what happened.
People get treated differently all the time for reasons that aren't obvious to outsiders.
Tom

Internalizations of personal differences in treating others is not the same as when a public official, such as a cop, following protocols is treating people, though. That means there is far less room for difference according to law and procedure. Of course, there are theoretical things that could be that could account for a public person or public policies treating two people differently, but no one has enumerated those things, not even what they could be in theory based on reasonable argumentation stemming from documented evidence. So, to sum up, I AGREE that things in life are multi-variate, based on multiple variables and I AGREE that there are sometimes things we do not observe, but in this case we observe a lot of the interaction including what led up to the interaction and there is neither evidence of anything else as yet nor any suggested rational argumentation leading to a difference that would be legal or a valid police procedure. That means that as rational people since we have a lot of data to observe, we can make a probabilistic assessment to say something akin to "this seems like racism" or "probably racism," and it is okay to add a caveat such as "pending seeing the results of the internal affairs investigation."

well said. I'd like to add that, getting treated differently by people is entirely different from getting treated differently by the law.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Only somebody hopelessly mired in her own bias could possibly have used that language to describe how the white boy was handled by the female cop.

Quite literally only you and Derec are unable to put 2 and 2 together about this incident.

Man, I love the hills you decide to die on.

On the contrary, at least one other person has reserved judgment and said so.

I appear to be dying on a lot of hills lately, if your reports are accurate.

Now Patooka, if you mean "everyone else on this thread has the same lockstep bias that I do, and therefore I feel fully justified that I am correct", I couldn't agree more.

I think it’s just you and Derek in this thread who are marching up hills lockstep.

Tom just isn't as obvious.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I just don't get it. How is it possible for the police not to question witnesses and find out what happened? I mean, isn't that a part of their job? To take statements and gather evidence? The police clearly had a reason to arrest the teen, what was it? The fight? Then why one teen? Come on people, help the police out here.

Nah, their job is to protect white people from black people.

They just don't usually make it quite so obvious.

 

[Gospel]

Only somebody hopelessly mired in her own bias could possibly have used that language to describe how the white boy was handled by the female cop.

Quite literally only you and Derec are unable to put 2 and 2 together about this incident.

Man, I love the hills you decide to die on.

On the contrary, at least one other person has reserved judgment and said so.

I appear to be dying on a lot of hills lately, if your reports are accurate.

Now Patooka, if you mean "everyone else on this thread has the same lockstep bias that I do, and therefore I feel fully justified that I am correct", I couldn't agree more.

I think it’s just you and Derek in this thread who are marching up hills lockstep.

Tom just isn't as obvious.

Nah, I think TomC gets it.

All the rest of this post I agree with. It's exactly what makes the racism part a nearly inescapable conclusion. Why didn't the cops ask around? There were obviously a bunch of people there to ask questions about the fight.
Tom

TomC admitted in this post that the cops being racist is a nearly inescapable conclusion. So yeah He gets it, I'm just not sure what TomC's other issues are and don't really care to go into it because it's likely "Emotive, but irrelevant".

 

[Metaphor]

I would argue that only somebody hopelessly mired in his own bias could possibly come up with such a blatant misinterpretation.

The only thing that was more biased than Rhea's description of events was the NAACP's narrative. To hear tell of it, the white boy was given ice cream then tucked into bed with an eiderdown quilt.

White kid was put in a chair. Black kid was assaulted. White kid not arrested, black kid arrested.

Where does it say the black kid was arrested?