Woman Is Fired After Video Shows Her Blocking a Black Man From His Condo

[Bomb#20]

ld: there is evidence to suggest that race placed a factor.
AM: I watched the video. But I have seen no evidence suggesting that.
me: ... So clearly he thought it was about race...which contributed to his decision to stand on his rights rather than try to defuse the situation. It might well not have escalated into a penis length contest if only he hadn't decided it was because he was black.
ld: Whether or not Mr. Toles could or should have acted to defuse the situation is irrelevant to the issue that <different issue snipped>
me: AM said he hadn't seen evidence race was a factor so I showed him some.

Whether or not Mr. Toles should have defused the situation has nothing at all to whether race was a factor, so what on earth are you babbling about?

So who on earth claimed "should have" had anything to do with that? It doesn't take "should have" to make race a factor; it only takes "would have". His decision that her behavior was because he was black appears to have made race a factor. It likely would have gone down differently if she'd been black or if he'd been white because then he wouldn't have decided it was because he was black and felt so put upon.

No? Is management telling tenants not to let people they don't know into the building not a call to bar their entry? It sounds to me like she had a call.

You think management meant to literally block people from entering the building as opposed to not opening the door or buzzing people in that they didn’t know?

I don't even know how far my own building management wants us to go in not letting people tailgate us; I'm certainly not in the business of reading her building management's minds. If they told tenants not to let others tailgate them but they didn't mean literally blocking them but they didn't make clear they meant "but don't literally block them", then that's still a call to bar their entry, and if there was a miscommunication on that point, that's on them.

And that assumes Ms. Mueller is accurately portraying what management tells people.

True, but there's nothing in the least out of the ordinary about her claim. Last I checked, her building management was refusing to confirm or deny her account of what they tell people.

And, it is irrelevant to the basic issue that it is not incumbent on the victim to defuse the situation.

Nobody said it is ..

And yet you harp on it as if it is relevant.

Yes, yes, we get it, you can't tell the difference between "should have" and "would have". That's on you.

BTW, Mr Toles was a victim since Ms. Mueller was illegally barring him from entering his building. Why anyone had to be shown that Mr. Toles was a victim is truly pathetic.

"Illegally"? Can you cite which law requires people to get out of the way when somebody else demands they do so so he can tailgate them into a secured private building?

No doubt. And Ms. Mueller felt it wasn't.

Do tell how you KNOW how she felt while this happened.

Based on news media interviews with her after the fact.

Nor have the "agnostics" presented anything other than they don't have sufficient information to make a judgment. Which is fine, but that does not mean that anyone else lacks sufficient information.

Indeed not. That's why I didn't claim Ms. Mueller's accusers spoke with reckless disregard for the truth

You certainly insinuated it. And when called your baseless insinuation, offered up very poor reasons to justify it.

Excuse me? What I said was an investigation, not an insinuation. The people who accused Ms. Mueller of racism either had evidence or else spoke with reckless disregard for the truth. Asking them if they have evidence is no more an insinuation when I do it than when the police ask the same of a citizen filing a complaint against his neighbor. You think we need a less "poor" reason to "justify" asking for evidence than "innocent until proven guilty"?

And if my failure to presume that her accusers had evidence was baseless, then why is it, do you think, that not one of them has responded with an iota of evidence that Ms. Mueller would have reacted differently if a white man had acted like Toles? If either they or you actually do have sufficient information, may the rest of us see that information, please?

 

[laughing dog]

Excuse me?

No.

What I said was an investigation, not an insinuation. The people who accused Ms. Mueller of racism either had evidence or else spoke with reckless disregard for the truth.

No more than your claim - as I have shown earlier in this thread. Your excuses appear no more than the hypocritical spin that they are.

 

[Bomb#20]

You keep claiming her blocking him was illegal. What law do you think requires people to allow others to tailgate them into buildings?

She's creating a fire hazard.

On what planet does standing in the way of someone trying to get into a building create a fire hazard?

And it's likely a tortious assault.

You mean the way when the cops beat up a suspect, they charge him with trying to beat up the cops? He pushed her.

She had whatever opportunity she needed to have closed the door and forced him to scan,

How are you getting that? The video didn't show that.

and instead she continued to block his entry (showing general intent to cause a confrontation). The damages would be nonexistent so it wouldn't make sense to pursue a case, but there's certainly a law,

Well, if that's certain, then which law?

and he had every right to be where he was and intended to go,

It's private property. If building management has a problem with a tenant stopping another tenant who has a right to be where he intended to go from tailgating, they can evict her for it, but that doesn't mean she broke any laws.

and her retaliatory call to the police after he authenticated with his key in his door would be clear evidence of her mental state.

Her retaliatory call to the police may or may not have been against the law, but that doesn't bear on DDR's claim that she was illegally blocking him from entry.

She has no authority to check people's papers or to be the dragon behind the drawbridge.

Management telling tenants not to let others tailgate them sure sounds like they were authorizing tenants to be dragons behind the drawbridge. If that sort of directive doesn't qualify as authorization, because it's illegal for tenants to be dragons behind the drawbridge, which statute makes it illegal?

 

[Bomb#20]

Is management telling tenants not to let people they don't know into the building not a call to bar their entry?

It depends. Let's look at an obvious case of each type.

Several persons say some things outside that could be interpreted as that they want to break in but not necessarily are outside and appear to be waiting to get in. Do not open the door at all and do not communicate with them. That is, not letting them in is not the same as blocking someone.

Someone with a key fob is trying to enter the building but you do not know them, nor do you know a lot of other people.

So you're presenting two scenarios with different facts from the Mueller-Toles encounter; in one it's a call to bar entry and in the other it isn't. Is that supposed to tell us whether a tenant is called on to bar entry when she only notices that a man is trying to get in without a key fob after she opens the door?

You ought not stand in their way, blocking them from entry.

Your moral judgment about what one ought to do doesn't bear on whether she had a call to bar their entry.

Blocking a person's path to their domicile could possibly be illegal

Sure, on a public right-of-way, or on his own property. This was private property, not his. Sounds to me like whether that's allowed is up to the building owners. Why would there be a law against it?

and besides that, the board did not ask anyone to physical block people

If that was not their intention, they do not appear to have made that clear.

or engage in related crimes such as fire hazards, harassment-to include racial harassment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, assault, or George Zimmerman them.

And that would be relevant, if Ms. Mueller had done those things, and if the dispute were over whether she'd been called on to do those things.