Y2K wrote:
He's not obligated to give away his personal information such as an address to a security officer. She's not allowed to enforce the rule of law as a security officer in the manner as she would her main job, which is a police officer.
Did he get a bit theatrical? Yes. However, that still doesn't make his position wrong.
Nor does it make her position "profiling" as the article is suggesting.
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
Nor does it make her position "profiling" as the article is suggesting.
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Robceltsfan wrote:
Nor does it make her position "profiling" as the article is suggesting.
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
Both of these points can be true at the same time
Last edited by LookAway on Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Y2K wrote:
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Meh.....whatever happens from this point on will be based on saving face and caving to outside pressures.....not written rules or right and wrong.
I'd fully expect this place to apologize...and at minimum ask the manager to apologize or outright fire her. I wouldn't agree with that either.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Y2K wrote:
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
Both of these points can be true at the same time
Uhhh....thank you?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Meh.....whatever happens from this point on will be based on saving face and caving to outside pressures.....not written rules or right and wrong.
I'd fully expect this place to apologize...and at minimum ask the manager to apologize or outright fire her. I wouldn't agree with that either.
I don't think she should be fired either unless she has a history of harassing black tenants or something. She should know the rules of her building though so kicking him out after he shows a key card shouldn't get him thrown out of HIS pool
Y2K wrote:
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Maybe. It's also good business to go that route to appease the hysteric masses at times...
Business is business.
You know this though.
[Note: Shayne probably gets free rent out of this deal, too. Does that excuse him acting like a dick? Make him 100% correct? Of course not. It's business.]
rileymartin wrote:
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Meh.....whatever happens from this point on will be based on saving face and caving to outside pressures.....not written rules or right and wrong.
I'd fully expect this place to apologize...and at minimum ask the manager to apologize or outright fire her. I wouldn't agree with that either.
I don't think she should be fired either unless she has a history of harassing black tenants or something. She should know the rules of her building though so kicking him out after he shows a key card shouldn't get him thrown out of HIS pool
She didn't kick him out for not identifying himself. She knew he lived there, obviously. She was in possession of his mom's purse for chrissakes.
She alludes to the fact that it's in her discretion to kick anybody out of the pool at any time. And in this case... right or wrong... she chose to do that because Shayne was apparently being an obstinate jerk. She can be fired for overreacting. From what we've seen though... it would be egregious to fire her for racial profiling.
Robceltsfan wrote:
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
We are going to find out about that, because the tone from the property OWNERS seems to be that the manager may have acted inappropriately...
Maybe. It's also good business to go that route to appease the hysteric masses at times...
Business is business.
You know this though.
[Note: Shayne probably gets free rent out of this deal, too. Does that excuse him acting like a dick? Make him 100% correct? Of course not. It's business.]
I see. So if the property ownbership finds fault with the manager, it will simply be doing so to cow tow to the coloreds right?
Let's pretend we are in Judge Judy's court. She's very good at getting to the gravamen of the case. Her first question is going to be is did Mr. Holland have a right to be at the pool .
Robceltsfan wrote:
Nor does it make her position "profiling" as the article is suggesting.
I don't care about the article. I'm dealing with the specific facts that were presented to us from the video.
So then what are we arguing about? The only reason this is news is because it's a black man being questioned by a pair of white women.
All parties were within their rights to do what they did.
The man was within his rights to refuse to answer questions.
The cop was within her rights to do the job she was asked to do and question guests at the pool.
The manager was within her rights to ask him to leave the pool area.
The fact that the other white/black/brown people were at the pool and received the same questioning doesn't matter....is that what we're saying? Because it's only profiling if you select a specific person or set of people and single them out. That didn't happen here. If it wasn't profiling....and everybody stayed within their rights....then what are people upset about?
This story has been heightened because of recent incidents. No more, no less.
BrotherCharles wrote:
"Bush, Riley, and myself empathized or sympathized with Mr. Holland." <<< Your words.
Can you explain, if possible, what degree of empathy do you have for Mr. Holland? How would you express your sympathy?
The security guard and property manager should apologize to him and be more sensitive in the future. I have said repeatedly in this thread the property manager should have identified herself and given the reason for requesting proof of his residency. I have repeated it so much it has become parody. Several posters have said no one else complained. We don't know that, Mr. Holland didn't know that, and so what?
Can you explain, if possible, what degree of empathy do you have for Mr. Holland? How would you express your sympathy?
