Delivering For FedEx While Black

[ZiprHead]

This may remind you of something.

2 arrested in connection with shooting at FedEx driver - Daily Leader

Two arrests have been made in connection with a recent shooting in Brookhaven. Gregory Charles Case of Brookhaven and his son Brandon Case each surrendered to Brookhaven Police Tuesday in the presence of their attorneys, BPD Chief Kenneth Collins said. At approximately 7:30 p.m. Jan. 24, a...

www.dailyleader.com

Two arrests have been made in connection with a recent shooting in Brookhaven.

Gregory Charles Case of Brookhaven and his son Brandon Case each surrendered to Brookhaven Police Tuesday in the presence of their attorneys, BPD Chief Kenneth Collins said.

At approximately 7:30 p.m. Jan. 24, a delivery driver for FedEx was exiting the Case’s driveway on Junior Trail after making a delivery when Gregory Case used his pickup truck in an attempt to block the vehicle from exiting the drive, according to Collins.

The driver — who was in a FedEx uniform, driving a Hertz Rental truck with a FedEx vehicle magnet on it — maneuvered his vehicle through the grass onto the road to pass Case. Brandon Case was standing in the roadway with a handgun pointed at the driver of the vehicle. The FedEx employee continued past the younger case and fled the area, calling his manager as he did so.

Brandon Case then allegedly joined his father in the pickup and the two chased the delivery truck, with Brandon firing repeatedly at the truck. They pursued the truck until it entered Interstate 55 headed north toward the FedEx distribution center in Jackson.

Collins denounced the idea that Brookhaven is a racist city, as he said some have claimed on social media. The Cases are white and the FedEx driver is black.

“We’re not going to have outsiders coming in trying to stir that up,” he said. “Brookhaven is not a racist, prejudiced town. You can’t judge a town by the actions of two individuals.”

“People need to be careful what they post on social media,” Collins said. “If somebody is killed or hurt because of what you post on social media, you will be charged, too.”

 

[Politesse]

“People need to be careful what they post on social media,” Collins said. “If somebody is killed or hurt because of what you post on social media, you will be charged, too.”

Has someone actually tweeted "Brookhaven is a racist town, let's go hurt them"? If so, I agree that there is legal liability for that. It seems kind of unlikely though. I Googled Brookhaven and racist, and found some very interesting results (apparently Brookhaven is a dangerous town to be Black in no matter what state your Brookhaven is in) but no self incriminating social media posts by outsiders.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I ordered a telescope last year. It was delivered by someone like the guy described in the article (though white), ie rental or his own car. Now, a telescope can get a bit large, and he had to make three stops at my place to deliver everything. But, it had to be legit because he was giving me something I ordered. But I can understand the confusion with someone in a rental car delivering Fedex packages.

Can't understand, the blocking or the shooting. They should go to prison for reckless endangerment and attempted homicide.

As far as "Is Brookhaven racist?" Well, based on Collins' statement, sounds like it is. I mean, you shouldn't let two people speak for a town, but when the Police Chief comes out firing... doth protesting mucheth? Collins happens to be black, so umm... I'm confused. Could have just spoken about the case.

As far as race for the assholes? I'm not saying they tried to kill the guy because he was black. I'm saying they couldn't believe he was a legit Fedex employee because he was black and not driving a Fedex Truck. Had that guy been white in the rental... I doubt a gun is ever pulled, forget fired.

 

[Politesse]

Most Americans, if they know anything about Brookhaven MS, know about the racially motivated murder that happened on their courthouse lawn during the early days of the Civil Rights movement, so I can understand why they might feel a bit touchy on the subject of race. An event like that scars a community indelibly. I similarly live in a city where a vicious hate crime took place, the cruel and pointless murder of an innocent Muslim woman in the early days after 9/11. It changed the city forever, and people are quick to tell you that the act did not define them, just like this fellow. Or to point out that the perpetrator wasn't a local. But, well, saying "this isn't a racist community" doesn't make it thus just by saying it. That wasn't our last run in with hate crimes, and in our case I definitely have seen some very condemnatory postings about our town and especially about our mayor. But can we really claim not to be racist when these things keep happening on our turf? I'm not going to go telling people off for calling Fremont racist when all that they see in the newspapers would seem to confirm that it is.

 

[Gospel]

I'll say it before someone else does.

1) There must be more to the story
2) Has that FedEx driver posted anything on Facebook that is or seems violent?
3) The FedEx driver used his truck as a weapon so young case was justified in defending himself
4) They chased the truck down the street because they just wanted to talk to him

 

[laughing dog]

I'll say it before someone else does.

1) There must be more to the story
2) Has that FedEx driver posted anything on Facebook that is or seems violent?
3) The FedEx driver used his truck as a weapon so young case was justified in defending himself
4) They chased the truck down the street because they just wanted to talk to him

You forgot
5) They were just trying to give him a gratuity.
6) They thought he had uncounted Trump ballot.
7) What about the BLM riots?

 

[Politesse]

Actually, speaking of Lamar Smith's assassination, the Sheriff who bungled that whole situation and ultimately allowed the three conspirators to walk free unpunished for murder was named Robert E. Case; do we know whether that Case and these Cases are relations?

Interesting fact about the Lamar Smith shooting: when the news of the murder first made it to the papers, it was under the headline "Links Shooting of Negro With Vote Irregularities: DA Says Illegal Ballots Voted in the First Primary". That was 65 years ago, but apparently conservative rhetoric never changes much.

 

[TomC]

I'll say it before someone else does.

1) There must be more to the story
2) Has that FedEx driver posted anything on Facebook that is or seems violent?
3) The FedEx driver used his truck as a weapon so young case was justified in defending himself
4) They chased the truck down the street because they just wanted to talk to him

You forgot
5) They were just trying to give him a gratuity.
6) They thought he had uncounted Trump ballot.
7) What about the BLM riots?

@Gospel made the main point in his item #1.
I also believe that there's more to this story. I don't know what. But as told, it doesn't make sense.

Almost everything after that is speculation.
I also remember when a "MAGA hat wearing teen assaulted a Native American elder." I read over a thousand posts on DailyKos alone pillorying Nicholas Sandmann and often advocating violence against him, his family, and his community.

I learned to wait for more information before getting too judgemental.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I am sure there is more to the story. For example, did the trigger happy son also happen to carry around a cell phone to call the police? How about the Dad? Did either one of them think to write down the license plate number and follow the van until they could reach a telephone? Or how about one follows the "suspicious" van while the other checks the entire of the house?

But unless the Fed Ex driver brandished a weapon, there is no excuse to shoot at him. Frankly, there is no reason to block his access to the road unless he was holding someone captive.

 

[Politesse]

I learned to wait for more information before getting too judgemental.
Tom

At what point will you feel you have "enough information"? Is that a defined condition for you?

And why would it matter one way or the other whether you have made a judgement or not at that time? Even if someone cared what your judgement was, as seems rather unlikely as it happens, couldn't you just change your mind about that judgement when new facts are presented? If not, why not?

 

[TomC]

Even if someone cared what your judgement was, as seems rather unlikely as it happens, couldn't you just change your mind about that judgement when new facts are presented?

Yes. I have.
Part of my post that you clipped out was about Nicholas Sandmann.

Another episode of this was learning about George Floyd doing up a handful of drugs on top of his health conditions then demanding to be restrained on the ground.

Yes, I have developed a different opinion based on more knowledge.

Have you?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll say it before someone else does.

1) There must be more to the story
2) Has that FedEx driver posted anything on Facebook that is or seems violent?
3) The FedEx driver used his truck as a weapon so young case was justified in defending himself
4) They chased the truck down the street because they just wanted to talk to him

You forgot
5) They were just trying to give him a gratuity.
6) They thought he had uncounted Trump ballot.
7) What about the BLM riots?

@Gospel made the main point in his item #1.
I also believe that there's more to this story. I don't know what. But as told, it doesn't make sense.

Almost everything after that is speculation.
I also remember when a "MAGA hat wearing teen assaulted a Native American elder." I read over a thousand posts on DailyKos alone pillorying Nicholas Sandmann and often advocating violence against him, his family, and his community.

I learned to wait for more information before getting too judgemental.
Tom

Well, it'd be the part about the two surrendering to the Police which would imply the things they did weren't justified. Also, the Police are the source of the allegations here.

 

[TomC]

, it'd be the part about the two surrendering to the Police which would imply the things they did weren't justified. Also, the Police are the source of the allegations here.

What part of what?

I'm not the one claiming to know what happened here or why.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Even if someone cared what your judgement was, as seems rather unlikely as it happens, couldn't you just change your mind about that judgement when new facts are presented?

Yes. I have.
Part of my post that you clipped out was about Nicholas Sandmann.

Another episode of this was learning about George Floyd doing up a handful of drugs on top of his health conditions then demanding to be restrained on the ground.

Yes, I have developed a different opinion based on more knowledge.

Have you?
Tom

Why, then, would it be a problem to take a position? If you're willing to change your mind if you find that your initial opinion was misinformed, what harm could come of having it? I don't personally believe that there should be a stopping point where one is no longer willing to change their mind if there's a reason to do so, nor any reason to wait years before admitting to having a perspective on what were once current events.

I did not clip that part of the post as a rhetorical game, it just wasn't the part of your post I was addressing. Do you mean that you initially believed Sandmann to be at fault, and later changed your mind? If so, what harm came from your initial assessment?

I am not nearly as confident as you that I now have "all the facts" about the Sandmann incident, by the by. If anything, every new piece of evidence I have encountered seems to paint that day as even more murky and ethically confusing than it initially seemed, not more clear. I'm concerned about a potential derail of this thread should we dive into the details, however.

 

[Gospel]

The whole "there must be more to the story" part is hardly ever used as a let's wait until more info is available before making any judgments on this forum. It's usually used as a defense for whoever side the poster has taken on the issue. Then when more information does come out, they hardly (if ever) change their position and double down on how this new info confirms their view regardless of evidence saying otherwise.

For example, TomC seems to still believe Floyd's drug use was the cause even after that was determined to NOT BE THE CASE by professionals and a verdict was reached 290 days ago in agreement.

 

[Gospel]

It also doesn't help that what more info do you need to have before you admit chasing a truck down the road and shooting at it is a fucking bad idea from the start.

 

[TomC]

Even if someone cared what your judgement was, as seems rather unlikely as it happens, couldn't you just change your mind about that judgement when new facts are presented?

Yes. I have.
Part of my post that you clipped out was about Nicholas Sandmann.

Another episode of this was learning about George Floyd doing up a handful of drugs on top of his health conditions then demanding to be restrained on the ground.

Yes, I have developed a different opinion based on more knowledge.

Have you?
Tom

Why, then, would it be a problem to take a position? If you're willing to change your mind if you find that your initial opinion was misinformed, what harm could come of having it? I don't personally believe that there should be a stopping point where one is no longer willing to change their mind if there's a reason to do so, nor any reason to wait years before admitting to having a perspective on what were once current events.

I did not clip that part of the post as a rhetorical game, it just wasn't the part of your post I was addressing. Do you mean that you initially believed Sandmann to be at fault, and later changed your mind? If so, what harm came from your initial assessment?

I am not nearly as confident as you that I now have "all the facts" about the Sandmann incident, by the by. If anything, every new piece of evidence I have encountered seems to paint that day as even more murky and ethically confusing than it initially seemed, not more clear. I'm concerned about a potential derail of this thread should we dive into the details, however.

I did take a position. It's in post#8.

What I didn't do was make moral judgements in the absence of a plausible narrative, much less solid evidence.

I have an opinion. But it isn't supported by much credible reporting. So it's not a firm opinion and very much subject to change, over and over.
Except for one thing. I don't much care about the media reports, which is all I've got. I'm not inclined to follow them, because I don't have a vested interest in either the narrative described by the OP title or the exoneration of some dumbasses in Michigan. So my vague, not particularly judgemental, position isn't important.
Not even to me.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I'm wondering if the Jackson Mississippi police are following this case? Jackson and Brookhaven are not that far apart: https://www.wtok.com/2021/08/13/police-fedex-driver-shot-killed-while-delivery-vehicle/

 

[TomC]

It also doesn't help that what more info do you need to have before you admit chasing a truck down the road and shooting at it is a fucking bad idea from the start.

Assuming that's what happened (which probably did, given reports), it's an extremely stupid, violent, immoral, and illegal response to someone dropping off a package on your porch.

But why? Why would anybody get that upset over a delivery? Doesn't make sense. The OP narrative makes it a racial issue. Maybe it is. But, maybe there's more to this story. Stuff that doesn't fit the narrative, so it gets overlooked in the ideological media bubbles.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I'm wondering if the Jackson Mississippi police are following this case? Jackson and Brookhaven are not that far apart:

I thought the Brookhaven being talked about is in Michigan.
Am I wrong? Did I believe a bit of false reporting on IIDB?
Tom

ETA ~Oh. A post was edited. ~