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

[southernhybrid]

southernhybrid white people have proven to be great allies in the fight against inequality. People like you alive today, people like you that was alive yesterday and people like you to come in the future have every reason to feel proud of being white. You already know this, people don't need to experience racism to understand it, listening is all that's required.

Thank you. I try. I wouldn't say that I'm proud of being white, but I do feel fortunate to have so many wonderful black friends, acquaintances, and neighbors who have accepted me and who care about me as much as I do them.

But, I am proud to live in an neighborhood where both black and white people can walk or run down the street without any fears. So, while we have a long way to go, at least we're making progress.

 

[Gun Nut]

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

I'll humor you anyway. So the cop trusted Franko based on a 3-second conversation? Is that what you're saying?

Depends on what you mean by "trust", because obviously one can "trust" that someone is not getting ready to stab you in the face or run away, without "trusting" them to manage your 401k retirement account, or feed your pets while away. So, yes, she trusted him enough not to murder anyone for at least the next few seconds while she helped stop the other guy from running away.

I just timed myself saying, "Thank you officer, I'm glad you're here. That guy just tried to kill me". and then replying to myself "you're OK Stay right there". That (make-believe) conversation took 2.5 seconds.... before you ask what this has to do with reality I will tell you <sigh>... it tells us how much information can potentially be exchanged in 3 seconds.

So, do you think that if the female cop had been put in charge of the black kid and he asserted that the white-ish kid just tried to kill him (more believable since the black kid was on bottom when the police arrived) she would have believed the black kid in that 2.5 second convo?

Why or why not?

Do you think it mattered that it was a female cop who sat a kid (any kid) down and a male cop who pushed the other kid down and cuffed him?

Good question... of course, we can't know. But that is exactly the kind of question I have been asking.... the kind of question that could lead to an explanation of what we see that is more simple than "a 200 year conspiracy to keep the black man from gaining more power than the white man".... even if such a conspiracy did / does exist in places at times.
"the male cop ALWAYS treats EVERYONE this way and the female cop ALWAYS treats EVERYONE that way"... Occam's Razor says that is our best explanation... that the two cops that are paired together have very different policing styles... being two totally different people and all.

if this was one cop in two videos treating two different people of different races differently in almost exactly the same context, then racism would rate far more likely than what we are seeing here.

 

[Toni]

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

I'll humor you anyway. So the cop trusted Franko based on a 3-second conversation? Is that what you're saying?

Depends on what you mean by "trust", because obviously one can "trust" that someone is not getting ready to stab you in the face or run away, without "trusting" them to manage your 401k retirement account, or feed your pets while away. So, yes, she trusted him enough not to murder anyone for at least the next few seconds while she helped stop the other guy from running away.

I just timed myself saying, "Thank you officer, I'm glad you're here. That guy just tried to kill me". and then replying to myself "you're OK Stay right there". That (make-believe) conversation took 2.5 seconds.... before you ask what this has to do with reality I will tell you <sigh>... it tells us how much information can potentially be exchanged in 3 seconds.

So, do you think that if the female cop had been put in charge of the black kid and he asserted that the white-ish kid just tried to kill him (more believable since the black kid was on bottom when the police arrived) she would have believed the black kid in that 2.5 second convo?

Why or why not?

Do you think it mattered that it was a female cop who sat a kid (any kid) down and a male cop who pushed the other kid down and cuffed him?

Good question... of course, we can't know. But that is exactly the kind of question I have been asking.... the kind of question that could lead to an explanation of what we see that is more simple than "a 200 year conspiracy to keep the black man from gaining more power than the white man".... even if such a conspiracy did / does exist in places at times.
"the male cop ALWAYS treats EVERYONE this way and the female cop ALWAYS treats EVERYONE that way"... Occam's Razor says that is our best explanation... that the two cops that are paired together have very different policing styles... being two totally different people and all.

if this was one cop in two videos treating two different people of different races differently in almost exactly the same context, then racism would rate far more likely than what we are seeing here.

It says that is our best explanation—except for more than 300 years of history.

You are right: we do not have the history of arrests or interactions with either of these cops with respect to how they handle mall scuffles or black vs white people. I genuinely think that neither cop consciously thought about the color of either boy as they reacted to them.

I do think that most of us hold unconscious biases that we don’t realize we hold. That does not make it ok for us to treat people differently because of how they look. It’s still racism—or sexism or homophobia or transphobia, etc. Unconscious means we know better. But all of us react without thinking, at least some times. And that betrays hidden assumptions we make based on how someone appears.

In this thread, we have at least one poster who thinks the female cop sat the boy down because she was too intimidated by him to throw him down and cuff him. Based 100% on her gender. As if that were the best choice: throw people down and cuff them.


That is much easier for some people to acknowledge than the fact that two boys were treated differently because of the color of their skin.

 

[Metaphor]

In this thread, we have at least one poster who thinks the female cop sat the boy down because she was too intimidated by him to throw him down and cuff him. Based 100% on her gender. As if that were the best choice: throw people down and cuff them.

Toni, when you make false statements about me, please don't believe I don't realise what you are doing just because you don't use my name.

I did not say the female cop sat the boy down because she was 'intimidated'. TomC first made that false assertion and I corrected him in multiple posts (e.g. post 265). I corrected you in post 269. Now, I partly blame TomC for falsely claiming I said the female cop was intimidated for this idea hanging around. But I also blame you for repeating the false claim even when I corrected you. You didn't apologise for repeating the false claim and you didn't stop making the false claim, as we see here.

I also did not attribute anything to her 'gender' but speculated about the sex differences in the interaction.

 

[Toni]

The NAACP statement quoted in the video contains at least two falsehoods. The statement says the cops' immediate reaction was to 'aggressively throw the black child to the ground.' The black boy was already on the ground when the officers came on to the scene, thrown down by the white boy.

The second falsehood was that 'the white youth was carefully eased onto a couch'. That is not what the video shows. The video shows a female officer pulling the white boy onto the couch by grabbing the back of his jumper.

It's my opinion that there are possible sex implications here that are at least as interesting as the possible racial ones, but I suspect they will not be discussed in the media.

This is you, post #5 in this thread.

I did not mention you in my post #603.

It is impossible to know the sex of any person in that video by looking. The officer we are calling the female officer is most probably cis-female but that is not a known. We do know that individual presents as female, i.e. her gender is female. None of us has looked at their birth certificates or at their genitals or done a DNA analysis for their karyotype.

You should review your post #19. Also posts by TomC and myself (263, 266).

 

[Metaphor]

This is you, post #5 in this thread.

I did not mention you in my post #603.

Of course you didn't mention me, but you were referring to me. I know it, because you made the same false accusation before, and even though I corrected you - in post 269 - you persisted in mischaracterising my words. Of course, perhaps there is a separate person you believe believes the female cop was intimated. Who is that person?

It is impossible to know the sex of any person in that video by looking.

On the contrary. There was one adult human female, one adult human male, and two male youth.

The officer we are calling the female officer is most probably cis-female but that is not a known. We do know that individual presents as female, i.e. her gender is female.

The female officer is female. She doesn't 'present' as female. She is female. Nothing about how she presents makes any material difference to the fact of her female sex. She could take testosterone, block estrogen, spend the cost of a typical American house getting a pseudophallus fashioned from rolled-up forearm skin, and she'd still be female.

None of us has looked at their birth certificates or at their genitals or done a DNA analysis for their karyotype.

No, none of us did. But I believe she is female, I have good reason to believe she is female, and it is in fact true she is female.

You should review your post #19. Also posts by TomC and myself (263, 266).

Why? I already debunked yours and Tom's false accusation. What on earth do you believe could be in those posts that implicate I said the female cop was intimidated? I know there is nothing, because if there were something you'd produce it.

Stop your false accusations. It was cute for the first four or five years but now it has outstayed its welcome.

 

[Toni]

How do you know that the 'female' officer was not born male and has transitioned? None of us do know that.

Please get over yourself. Not every post I write has a thing to do with you. You have made assumptions and have made claims that are not backed up by readings of your posts and mine in this thread.

If someone responding to your posts misunderstands you or gets your post wrong or attributes something to you that really belongs to someone else, you might consider doing what other people do: Make the correction: No, I meant XYZ. or I think you made a mistake in quoting a post. That was ABC in post #123. The truth is that nearly everyone makes such mistakes at some point and almost everyone is very gracious about pointing out an error in quoting or attribution or misunderstanding.

You, upthread, post 19:

And as I thought I had made plain, the sex of the two different officers, and what each did when they got to the scene, seemed something that might have been worth discussing. In particular, the female cop, if I can be frank, seems as if she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. Given his height and weight and male physique advantage over her, I doubt she could have forced cuffs on him had he chosen to resist.

 

[TomC]

I did not say the female cop sat the boy down because she was 'intimidated'. TomC first made that false assertion and I corrected him in multiple posts (e.g. post 265).

In post #263, I quoted you.
In post #265, you got semantic and changed the subject. You didn't use the word "intimidated". But you had said that you thought her treatment of Franco might be because she was physically unable to restrain him, while her male partner could handcuff Husain.

I found that extremely implausible. She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. She definitely could have subdued Franco.

Frankly, based on the video, she could have better handled the situation by herself. If she'd had 15 seconds before the male cop arrived, I don't think any of this racist nonsense would have happened. Based on the video, she was far more competent.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

How do you know that the 'female' officer was not born male and has transitioned? None of us do know that.

Please get over yourself. Not every post I write has a thing to do with you. You have made assumptions and have made claims that are not backed up by readings of your posts and mine in this thread.

If someone responding to your posts misunderstands you or gets your post wrong or attributes something to you that really belongs to someone else, you might consider doing what other people do: Make the correction: No, I meant XYZ. or I think you made a mistake in quoting a post. That was ABC in post #123. The truth is that nearly everyone makes such mistakes at some point and almost everyone is very gracious about pointing out an error in quoting or attribution or misunderstanding.

You, upthread, post 19:

And as I thought I had made plain, the sex of the two different officers, and what each did when they got to the scene, seemed something that might have been worth discussing. In particular, the female cop, if I can be frank, seems as if she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. Given his height and weight and male physique advantage over her, I doubt she could have forced cuffs on him had he chosen to resist.

And? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

 

[Toni]

How do you know that the 'female' officer was not born male and has transitioned? None of us do know that.

Please get over yourself. Not every post I write has a thing to do with you. You have made assumptions and have made claims that are not backed up by readings of your posts and mine in this thread.

If someone responding to your posts misunderstands you or gets your post wrong or attributes something to you that really belongs to someone else, you might consider doing what other people do: Make the correction: No, I meant XYZ. or I think you made a mistake in quoting a post. That was ABC in post #123. The truth is that nearly everyone makes such mistakes at some point and almost everyone is very gracious about pointing out an error in quoting or attribution or misunderstanding.

You, upthread, post 19:

And as I thought I had made plain, the sex of the two different officers, and what each did when they got to the scene, seemed something that might have been worth discussing. In particular, the female cop, if I can be frank, seems as if she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. Given his height and weight and male physique advantage over her, I doubt she could have forced cuffs on him had he chosen to resist.

And? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

See TomC's post above.

You did use the word 'intimidate.' You said that it 'seems she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. '

 

[TomC]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say the female cop sat the boy down because she was 'intimidated'. TomC first made that false assertion and I corrected him in multiple posts (e.g. post 265).

In post #263, I quoted you.

You quoted the same passage Toni just quoted. That is:

, I did not say she was intimidated. You will not find me saying that, because I did not say that.

True, you did not use the word "intimidated".

But in post #19

In particular, the female cop, if I can be frank, seems as if she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. Given his height and weight and male physique advantage over her, I doubt she could have forced cuffs on him had he chosen to resist.

that's sure what it sounds like.
Tom

And as I pointed out, there is nothing in what you quote to say the female cop was intimidated. Nothing. Nor is it implied. I did not refer to the female cop's internal state. I did not say she was frightened or nervous.

intimidated
adjective

/ɪnˈtɪm.ɪ.deɪ.tɪd/ us

/ɪnˈtɪm.ə.deɪ.t̬ɪd/

frightened or nervous because you are not confident in a situation:

You made a mistake. Please stop doubling down.

In post #265, you got semantic and changed the subject. You didn't use the word "intimidated".

I didn't use the word intimidated because I didn't say she was intimidated. That's how 'semantics' works. You made up something false about what I said and I pointed out your falsehood.

But you had said that you thought her treatment of Franco might be because she was physically unable to restrain him, while her male partner could handcuff Husain.

No, I did not say that either. I said, had Franco decided to resist, she'd be at his mercy. I did not say she acted the way she did because she was unable to restrain him.

I found that extremely implausible. She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. She definitely could have subdued Franco.

Whether you find what I say to be 'implausible' does not mean I said things I did not say.

Frankly, based on the video, she could have better handled the situation by herself. If she'd had 15 seconds before the male cop arrived, I don't think any of this racist nonsense would have happened. Based on the video, she was far more competent.
Tom

I am here to correct the record--again--about what I did and did not say about the female cop.

 

[Metaphor]

See TomC's post above.

You did use the word 'intimidate.' You said that it 'seems she would be at the mercy of the white boy, had he chosen to fight back. '

I did not use the word 'intimidate'. How can you so brazenly and falsely say that?

Yes, I believe she'd have been at the mercy of the white boy had he chosen to fight back. I did not say she was intimidated. Intimidation would be a reference to her internal mental state, which I did not speculate on.

Why are you doubling down? Can't you ever admit you are wrong? I'm not even asking you to apologise.

 

[TomC]

I said, had Franco decided to resist, she'd be at his mercy.

Feel free to explain the difference.

I'm saying that is ridiculous, and I've explained why I think that.
Tom

ETA ~I explained it post #608.~

 

[Metaphor]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

Well, they mean completely different things.

One means you are overpowered by something you can't meaningfully control:

"For the rally tonight, we are at the mercy of the weather gods"

The other refers to a mental state:

"He was intimidated by her quick wits and cool poise."

 

[Metaphor]

I said, had Franco decided to resist, she'd be at his mercy.

Feel free to explain the difference.

I'm saying that is ridiculous, and I've explained why I think that.
Tom

ETA ~I explained it post #608.~

One is an evaluation of the relative strengths of the two people involved.

The other is a reference to a mental state--a reference which I never made.

I have already explained this more than once.

 

[Metaphor]

How do you know that the 'female' officer was not born male and has transitioned? None of us do know that.

Then I'd be wrong about the female officer being female. But, I'm as confident that she is female as I am when I see an apple and make the call that it's an apple. I mean, it might be a pear that happens to look a lot like an apple, but I've still never been wrong on that particular call.

If someone responding to your posts misunderstands you or gets your post wrong or attributes something to you that really belongs to someone else, you might consider doing what other people do: Make the correction: No, I meant XYZ. or I think you made a mistake in quoting a post. That was ABC in post #123. The truth is that nearly everyone makes such mistakes at some point and almost everyone is very gracious about pointing out an error in quoting or attribution or misunderstanding.

I did make corrections. Multiple corrections. Jonathan Franzen level The Corrections.

I did not say the female cop was intimidated, and you were wrong to ever imply I did say it or think it, and still you are doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on your wrongness.

 

[TomC]

One is an evaluation of the relative strengths of the two people involved.

Tell me again why you think that a trained, equipped cop, with authority and backup, would be at the mercy of a high school kid.
Because the cop is female?

Seriously dude.
You made a big mistake. Own it.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Seriously dude.
You made a big mistake. Own it.
Tom

Take your own advice.

You made a small mistake about something I said. Then, when corrected on it, you doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on your mistake, compounding your mistake.

Indeed, right now you still have refused to admit you falsely represented my views.

Tell me again why you think that a trained, equipped cop, with authority and backup, would be at the mercy of a high school kid.
Because the cop is female.

You are, very poorly, attempting to deflect. Whether or not you agree with my view that the female cop would have been at the mercy of the high school male youth, had he decided not to co-operate, has no bearing on the mistake you made in saying I said she was intimidated, when I said no such thing.

 

[TomC]

You are, very poorly, attempting to deflect. Whether or not you agree with my view that the female cop would have been at the mercy of the high school male youth, had he decided not to co-operate, has no bearing on the mistake you made in saying I said she was intimidated, when I sa

Why do you think that such a cop would "be at the mercy" of a high school kid?
Tom