• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

St. Louis activists bail out African-American moms - Black Privilege?

She is charged with property damage and assault but has not been tried. Which means she ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
True. Nobody claimed otherwise. Which is why she has the opportunity at bail.
Furthermore, property damage can mean stepping on a sandwich and assault can mean pushing someone. But, what the hey, it is a poor black woman, so let's assume the worst.
I'm not assuming anything. Even if it is as you say, it would not be a "traffic violation" like scombrid claimed.

There are good arguments for the reform of the current bail system. Making is based on race and gender is counterproductive though, as is pretending that assault and property damage are "traffic violations".
 
I'm not assuming anything. Even if it is as you say, it would not be a "traffic violation" like scombrid claimed.
Scombrid made a general observation that need not be taken to equate assault and property damage are traffic violations. So, you did make at least one assumption.
 
Actually 'assault' could be saying "bitch, I'm going to kick your ass!". BATTERY is actually pushing someone.
Injustices like what?


Our civil and criminal penalty structure is pretty messed up eh?. A traffic violation has more relative consequence for a poor person than a felony does for a rich person.

"Property damage and assault" is not a traffic violation.
She is charged with property damage and assault but has not been tried. Which means she ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, property damage can mean stepping on a sandwich and assault can mean pushing someone. But, what the hey, it is a poor black woman, so let's assume the worst.
 
Who cares if the fundraiser targets a specific race and gender? They are a private organization. Let them target whomever they want.

Except if an organization was set up to bail out white men, and only white men, imagine the outcry.
So why is this double standard ok?
 
Who cares if the fundraiser targets a specific race and gender? They are a private organization. Let them target whomever they want.

Except if an organization was set up to bail out white men, and only white men, imagine the outcry.
So why is this double standard ok?

When your problems are imaginary, they deserve no consideration nor sympathy.
 
Actually 'assault' could be saying "bitch, I'm going to kick your ass!". BATTERY is actually pushing someone.
Still not a traffic violation though.

However, I went to Missouri courts website that gives you info on charges people face.
Whitney Gipson faces a 1st degree property damage charge (unless it was a $751 sandwich she did not just step on a sandwich!) and a 4th degree assault charge(could be just threats but could also be an actual physical attack).
 
Yeah, but they're black. And women. So why should any of the men care?
The issue is not that black women get bailed out, but that only black women get bailed out. Nobody is claiming that black women don't matter, just that they should not matter more than other people.

I mean, it's not like they were prostitutes or anything that would serve men's needs.
I'd much rather a sex worker be bailed out than somebody who assaults people and destroys property. Sex workers and their clients have done nothing wrong, while Gipson certainly has.
Btw: women and couples can and do hire sex workers as well. It's not just us "evil" men.

What do you mean, Gibson certainly has done something wrong? There were charges filed and a low bail was set. There has been no trial, no conviction. You assume quite a lot. Probably because she’s a woman and she’s black. You seem to skip the part where a trial has taken place, evidence and arguments presented and a verdict reached. None of these things have happened, nor has a judge meted out any sentence.

Of course you don’t believe it’s wrong to engage in prostitution. You have no respect for the law. You have no respect for people.
 
When your problems are imaginary, they deserve no consideration nor sympathy.
It's not an imaginary problem, it's a very real double standard. Being racially exclusive is ok for blacks but not for whites. Same standards should apply to both.
 
What do you mean, Gibson certainly has done something wrong?
You are right, I wrote too hastily. If she did what is alleged, she did something wrong is what I meant to write.
That is contrary to laws against prostitution, where the participants generally did not do anything wrong even if they did what is alleged.

Of course you don’t believe it’s wrong to engage in prostitution.
For a very good reason. This is analogous to how it is not wrong to engage in gay sex even though it was illegal in many states pre-Lawrence.

You have no respect for the law.
Depends on the law. Unjust laws deserve no respect. There is a very good reason to have laws against property damage and assault. No good reason for laws against consenting adults providing and accepting sexual services.

You have no respect for people.
I have respect for people who make money by providing a service their clients desire, even if that service is frowned upon by illiberals from right and from the left.
 
Scombrid made a general observation that need not be taken to equate assault and property damage are traffic violations. So, you did make at least one assumption.
You don't generally get arrested for traffic violations unless they are very serious (DUI, suspended licence, vehicular homicide) or don't pay your ticket and also don't show up for your court date to contest it.
 
You are right, I wrote too hastily. If she did what is alleged, she did something wrong is what I meant to write.
That is contrary to laws against prostitution, where the participants generally did not do anything wrong even if they did what is alleged.


For a very good reason. This is analogous to how it is not wrong to engage in gay sex even though it was illegal in many states pre-Lawrence.

You have no respect for the law.
Depends on the law. Unjust laws deserve no respect. There is a very good reason to have laws against property damage and assault. No good reason for laws against consenting adults providing and accepting sexual services.

You have no respect for people.
I have respect for people who make money by providing a service their clients desire, even if that service is frowned upon by illiberals from right and from the left.

You have no respect for the law. It is possible to disagree with a law and yet respect the law. it is possible to find a law unjust and still respect the law. It is possible to break the law and still have respect for the law. Selectively choosing which laws to keep and which to break at your personal convenience is not respect for the law or for other people.

You don’t respect the law.

It is possible to respect people but your ‘respect’ seems much more a willingness to ignore law in instances where it benefits you personally and allows you to throw down some cash in lieu of actual mutual échange of human emotions. This is not respect. This is selfishness.
 
This guy disagrees with you:
You know words can different meaning depending on context, right?
Playing games with semantics is a sure sign of somebody who has run out of arguments.

You are proposing that people consider a hypothetical, and that they should be outraged.

It's not semantics to point out that your hypothetical is the exact opposite of a real problem.
 
So someone has been talking about Black Privilege in some other threads. I felt like I wanted to play with this idea of "black privilege" and apply it to something in the news where there was some kind of application to African Americans.

So, first, here is a news story:
Home for Mother's Day: St. Louis activists bail out African-American moms who can’t afford the fees

Whitney Gipson was one of three women bailed out of jail before Mother’s Day thanks to the efforts of St. Louis activists. Expect Us raised nearly $3,000 through an online fundraiser.

Members of Expect Us met with other advocates at the St. Louis Justice Center on Saturday. The event included food, children’s activities and short speeches by local demonstrators and leaders, including Democratic Missouri Rep. Bruce Franks.

Gipson, 26, told a small crowd about her experiences while staying at the city’s two jails.

“All I can say is, they really treat us like we trash in there,” she said.

She said she was accused of property damage and assault after women started an altercation in a sandwich shop. Gipson said she was in jail for 10 days on a $1,000 cash bond, but couldn’t afford to pay. It was her first time in jail. First, she was at the Justice Center.

“We were sleeping on the floors. We were sleeping on top of each other,” Gipson told the group of a few dozen. “There were probably about 12 girls.”

She said the women were brought to the Medium Security Institution, otherwise known as the workhouse, because of overcrowding. There, she said conditions were worse.

“It just stank so bad,” she said. “I didn’t have a bed. I didn't have a mat. I was sleeping on a bed pan for like six days before a trainee woke me up outta my sleep and told me, ‘Oh, you need a mat.’”

She said “mildewed” water and roaches in the living quarters were other things she experienced. A lawsuit was brought against the workhouse last year for inhumane conditions.

Gipson said she was thankful for the financial help to be released from jail and to be with her child.

“I feel like I got a friend. I feel like somebody really care,” she said. “I was telling the girls in jail,.I can’t afford to get out. I mean a $1,000 we all talk about having money, but I don’t have $1,000 cash at all. I don’t have no savings.”

Gipson’s experience is one that resonated with many other black mothers who were in the crowd on Saturday. Before Gipson arrived, event organizers asked women to form a row in front of the jail.

Leaders asked participants to step forward each time they could answer yes to a question about incarceration, including had they or a loved one been in jail. At the end of the exercise a handful of women were left, all of whom were black.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post...t-african-american-moms-who-can-t-afford-fees

Second--and here's I think the crux of the issue--does it make sense to call trying to remove harm that inordinately applies to a group, a "privilege?" One may think, well, in this case what about if they had paid money for 2 black ladies and 1 white lady to be bailed out? Maybe? But we don't actually know the criteria used to select the three women or for that matter, look at the exercise in the article--that there appears to be something more than just class, i.e. also race that is going on here.

In any case, some of the examples are about justice, restitution, and fixing consequences to harm, not about privilege which is more unconditional than about suffering. Agree or disagree? All of the examples are about suffering and harm that has come to African Americans. Like at the Starbucks and now this example. These are specific examples of specific examples and not about policies. Please do not bring up polices but instead specific concrete actions.

So, for example, the old white lady at McDonald's who burned her leg with the hot coffee. She suffered and received damages and then McDonald's was hit with extra punitive damages because they did it a lot. No one was calling that White privilege or Senior Citizen privilege.

Yes, that's how it works with white supremacists.

Anything that lifts the boot off of the necks of the oppressed even a tiny bit counts as "oppression" of whoever is wearing the boot. It's the same reason Muslims in Muslim-majority countries cry "oppression" any time you ask them to stop oppressing religious minorities or sexual minorities (or sexually abusing minors).

When you are in the privileged group, being asked to stop persecuting others counts as "persecution" of you.

It's the same reason those snowflakes see the #metoo movement as "persecution" of men.
 
The part I don't really get is why are the proceeds for the fundraiser race targeted? Are there no white moms (or latino, asian, american indian, etc) unable to afford $1,000 bail, or are they simply less deserving of being with their children on mothers day? Why not administer the charity in a race neutral manner?
We have serious problems with our Justice system in large part because of Bail Bonds, and Axulus wants to ask 'why just the sisters'?

I just don't understand the race based criteria in reuniting poor mothers with their children on mothers day who were charged with minor stuff. It seems like a more noble goal to consider all as potentially deserving of help regardless of the color of their skin if they find themselves in identical circumstances. If more black mothers are in the pool of potentially deserving of help, then they will tend to be more likely to get the help.
 
Poor Derec. This thread is a Trigger Perfecta.
She said she was accused of property damage and assault after women started an altercation in a sandwich shop. Gipson said she was in jail for 10 days on a $1,000 cash bond, but couldn’t afford to pay.

Our civil and criminal penalty structure is pretty messed up eh?. A traffic violation has more relative consequence for a poor person than a felony does for a rich person.
And it gets worse. If you can't afford bail, you are much more likely to be tried or plea to a higher charge and face stiffer sentences. So much for equal protection.

What do you suggest as an alternative incentive for such individuals to show up on their court date? The bail is there to incentivize people not to skip out on their court proceedings.
 
Back
Top Bottom