Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters

[Derec]

Racial dispute at beloved bakery roils liberal college town

The three students were arrested after punching and kicking the white shopkeeper. The 18- and 19-year-old students said that they were racially profiled and that their only crime was trying to buy alcohol with fake identification; the shopkeeper, Allyn Gibson, said the students attacked him after he caught them trying to steal bottles of wine.
The day after the arrests, hundreds of students protested outside the bakery. Members of Oberlin's student senate published a resolution saying Gibson's had "a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment."

That college is pretty insane otherwise as well.

News articles in 2015 quoted students decrying the school dining hall's sushi and Vietnamese banh mi sandwiches as cultural appropriation. The divisive, voice-of-a-generation actress Lena Dunham, famously a 2008 Oberlin alumna, was quoted in Food & Wine magazine as saying, "The press reported it as, 'How crazy are Oberlin kids?' But to me, it was actually, 'Right on.'"

Aren't banh mi sandwiches/breads culturally appropriating French baguettes?

The three students arrested at Gibson's pleaded guilty in August to attempted theft and aggravated trespassing and said in statements required by a plea agreement that their actions were wrong and that the store wasn't racist.
Even so, students continue to boycott Gibson's over perceived racial profiling, causing business to suffer. Pressed by a reporter to provide evidence or examples of profiling, they said only that when black students enter the store, they feel as though they're being watched.
"Racism can't always be proven on an Excel sheet," said Kameron Dunbar, an Oberlin junior and vice chair of the student senate.

Apparently vague feelings are enough.

On Nov. 7, the Gibsons sued Oberlin and Meredith Raimondo, vice president and dean of students, for slander, accusing faculty members of encouraging demonstrations against the bakery by suspending classes, distributing flyers, and supplying protesters with free food and drink.
It says Raimondo took part in the demonstration against Gibson's with a bullhorn and distributed a flyer that said the bakery is a "RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION."
Today, the lawsuit says, college tour guides continue to inform prospective students that Gibson's is racist.

If college is propagandizing against the bakery, then their actions are definitely actionable and Gibson's should win the suit.

Dave Gibson, the bakery's owner, says the lawsuit is about standing up for his right to crack down on shoplifting without being branded as a racist. The suit says Oberlin demanded that he stop pushing criminal charges on first-time shoplifters and call school deans instead.

What gives Oberlin the right to demand a business not prosecute shoplifters?

"Gibson's has become all that is wrong with America," Berstein said. "It's a classic case of those political bubbles that don't communicate with each other, and don't want to."

Shouldn't that read "Oberlin"?

From another article:

The lawsuit reignites a rift between the bakery and the college that began last year when a student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID while also concealing two bottles of wine under his shirt from Allyn Gibson, David Gibson’s son.
The incident became racially charged because Allyn Gibson is white while the student and two others also charged in the incident are black. All three students pleaded guilty in August to misdemeanor charges and read statements into the record acknowledging that Allyn Gibson was within his right to detain the shoplifter and that his actions were not racially motivated.

Apparently that's all it takes to make a shoplifting/assault incident racial these days.

 

[untermensche]

No.

But it's a good bet you're a racist if you are consumed with the subject of race.

 

[Derec]

No.

Did you read the articles? Or even the parts I quoted?

 

[untermensche]

Not consumed with the subject of race.

 

[laughing dog]

It is possible that Gibson's does have a long history of racial profiling, regardless of the (de)merits of the admitted shoplifter's actions. Yet, once again, someone immediately assumes the outcome that fits his bias.

It is possible that there are claims in Gibson's lawsuit that are untrue. Yet once again, someone immediately assumes the claims are true. Which is interesting, since that someone has a history of characterizing lawyers and claims they make as lies when he does not like them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You must be really upset, Derec. You posted in the wrong sub-forum.

 

[Elixir]

You must be really upset, Derec. You posted in the wrong sub-forum.

You'd be upset too, if you were a persecuted, under-represented white boy seeing innocent white Christians like Moore and Trump being abused just for standing up for white middle class families, while the darkies and wetbacks usurp your power.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A lot of evidence is missing here. Gibson's allegations, if true, do create a basis for defamation. It will be interesting to see how the court decides once the evidence is presented to it.

"Gibson's has become all that is wrong with America," Berstein said. "It's a classic case of those political bubbles that don't communicate with each other, and don't want to."

This really does highlight an important question. How likely are you to win a defamation suite for unfounded accusations of racial discrimination? How often has this been tried before in the US?

Am I mistaken in thinking that false accusations rarely get prosecuted or punished? They definitely should be. And if it is done with clear structure and guidlines then I think it could be done in a way not discouraging legitimate victims from coming forward against their abusers. A balance needs to be struck there, but we shouldn't allow people to just make accusations and ruin people with impunity just because they are minorities.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But it's a good bet you're a racist if you are consumed with the subject of race.

Does that work for you in all directions or only one?

 

[southernhybrid]

So, let me get this straight Derec, and yes I read your entire linked piece. You are making the claim that because a group of students and possibly a couple of teachers, from one university have made, what very well may be false claims against a business owner, that means that every time a black person is arrested for shoplifting, liberals think whoever reported the crime is a racist? Is that it? That's what it sounds like you're suggesting. What nonsense.

Are there some overly zealous liberals on college campuses these days? Of course there are, but there are also some very racist students on some college campuses today as well, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that sexism is a huge problem as well. It seems to me that you like to take extreme examples and then make gross generalizations about a large group of people, based on that one example.

If these black students attacked the owner of the store, of course they should be arrested and put on trial, regardless of whether the man is a racist or not. Violence isn't justified just because somebody isn't being fair to you. But, coming to such strong conclusions regarding one article that you found in a small, generally unknown source of news, doesn't make your claims look very accurate.

And, if I searched long enough, I'm pretty sure I could find many examples of racism and sexism in larger, more respected sources of news. For example, I'm sure that you are aware that black folks are arrested and punished more often than white people when it comes to possession of pot, although statistically, white folks use more pot than black folks. Why is that? How come you never bring up those things, but you're so quick to find the few examples of What may be misguided actions by a small group of young liberals on a college campus? That's sad.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, let me get this straight Derec, and yes I read your entire linked piece. You are making the claim that because a group of students and possibly a couple of teachers, from one university have made, what very well may be false claims against a business owner, that means that every time a black person is arrested for shoplifting, liberals think whoever reported the crime is a racist? Is that it? That's what it sounds like you're suggesting. What nonsense.

I very much appreciate that you started by asked Derec to clarify instead of telling him what he is "really saying". That is refreshing on this board.

And, if I searched long enough, I'm pretty sure I could find many examples of racism and sexism in larger, more respected sources of news. For example, I'm sure that you are aware that black folks are arrested and punished more often than white people when it comes to possession of pot, although statistically, white folks use more pot than black folks.

I look forward to Derec's reply to this as well. I agree with you that there is plenty of racism, and sexism going around. I also agree with Derec that there are plenty of false cries of racism and sexism going around. In general society I would say the incidents of racism outnumber the false cries, but on modern university campuses I would say the false cries outnumber the incidents of racism.

Why is that? How come you never bring up those things, but you're so quick to find the few examples of What may be misguided actions by a small group of young liberals on a college campus? That's sad.

You are on a board where many have claimed "black people can't be racist" and where many see everything as racism, sexism, etc, to a comical extent. Derec provides some counterbalance, and is often attacked for doing so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is possible that Gibson's does have a long history of racial profiling, regardless of the (de)merits of the admitted shoplifter's actions. Yet, once again, someone immediately assumes the outcome that fits his bias.

It is possible that there are claims in Gibson's lawsuit that are untrue. Yet once again, someone immediately assumes the claims are true. Which is interesting, since that someone has a history of characterizing lawyers and claims they make as lies when he does not like them.

Think he's going to bring a lawsuit like that with dirty hands?? I would be very surprised if he's been discriminating.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The court case should tell the story. He'll have to present his evidence and so will they.

 

[laughing dog]

It is possible that Gibson's does have a long history of racial profiling, regardless of the (de)merits of the admitted shoplifter's actions. Yet, once again, someone immediately assumes the outcome that fits his bias.

It is possible that there are claims in Gibson's lawsuit that are untrue. Yet once again, someone immediately assumes the claims are true. Which is interesting, since that someone has a history of characterizing lawyers and claims they make as lies when he does not like them.

Think he's going to bring a lawsuit like that with dirty hands?? I would be very surprised if he's been discriminating.

So?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is possible that Gibson's does have a long history of racial profiling, regardless of the (de)merits of the admitted shoplifter's actions. Yet, once again, someone immediately assumes the outcome that fits his bias.

It is possible that there are claims in Gibson's lawsuit that are untrue. Yet once again, someone immediately assumes the claims are true. Which is interesting, since that someone has a history of characterizing lawyers and claims they make as lies when he does not like them.

Think he's going to bring a lawsuit like that with dirty hands?? I would be very surprised if he's been discriminating.

So?

In other words, you have no answer.

 

[Toni]

It is possible that Gibson's does have a long history of racial profiling, regardless of the (de)merits of the admitted shoplifter's actions. Yet, once again, someone immediately assumes the outcome that fits his bias.

It is possible that there are claims in Gibson's lawsuit that are untrue. Yet once again, someone immediately assumes the claims are true. Which is interesting, since that someone has a history of characterizing lawyers and claims they make as lies when he does not like them.

Think he's going to bring a lawsuit like that with dirty hands?? I would be very surprised if he's been discriminating.

I have no doubt the merchant is certain that he never discriminates.

I am less convinced that he doesn't discriminate.

I know that my kids came home from college furious because when they visited local convenience stores with a group of friends, the only one who got followed around was always the black kid. Who went to the same college, did the same things, took the same classes, etc. as the non-black kids in the group.

 

[laughing dog]

So?

In other words, you have no answer.

Answer? You presented your unsubstantiated opinion. Your opinion is based on the assumption that this businessman believes he has done nothing wrong. That does not mean he has not done anything wrong. For all we know, he may very well be like you and handwave away any claim of discrimination or racial profiling.

I simply pointed out that his claims were accepted as true by Derec even though he
1) has no clue about the actual facts, and
2) routinely rejects the claims of lawyers when he disagrees with their claims and does not have the facts.

Unlike you, I am making no claims about the facts - because, unlike you, I do not believe I know all of the relevant facts. Nor, unlike you, do I assume I can deduce the facts of a specific situation by relying on my biases and conjectures.

 

[Jarhyn]

I seem to recall "attacks" like the one the shopkeeper is mentioning... Generally that word is used by the media when the description is too flimsy to warrant a stronger, and more legally important claim such as "assaulted" or "injured". It could mean they resisted when he assaulted them, it could mean they insulted him, it could just mean that they shoplifted and he interpreted that as an "attack" on his business. It could merely mean that there were more of them than there was of him and he felt particularly insecure. It is a nebulous and meaningless word, in this context.

Do we know any details of this supposed "attack" that would justify actually caring? Without such details, I'm going to just dismiss the whole damn thing as hyperbole. Some underage college kids tried to score some booze and the shopkeeper overreacted. Does this warrant protests and activism and shit? Maybe not. But does the consistent overreaction when people of color do stuff like this as compared to the way we overlook such incidents involving white kids warrant public attention? Probably... But then again, I myself dislike the unwarranted reactions I have against people of color, and I have doubts about whether others on the more GOP side of things have ever even critically examined their disparate reactions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am less convinced that he doesn't discriminate.

I know that my kids came home from college furious because when they visited local convenience stores with a group of friends, the only one who got followed around was always the black kid. Who went to the same college, did the same things, took the same classes, etc. as the non-black kids in the group.

Yes, lets throw away any presumption of innocence of this shop keeper because racism exists in the world and you have a second hand anecdote about a different shop. That makes sense...