[Politcs] When your KID knows better than calling the police on someone simply because he's Black.
- Thread starter ObsidianJones_v1legacy
- Start date
Heres the thing though, this guy didn't have any authority, he wasn't a guard or a cop and it wasn't his property either. There is no obligation to do anything he says, it might seem unsatisfactory but there was absolutely nothing compelling this black guy to do anything he said, and he was probably just pissed off due to being accused.generals3 said:
Sometimes people just don't want to bother giving you any proof, maybe because they are annoyed or don't like you or whatever but that doesn't prove anything. He was just being defiant to somebody pissing him off.
Imagine if I ran up to somebody driving a car and demanded their registration, if they don't give it to me is it because they don't give a shit about me and they don't have to or is it because they must have actually stole it?
Same could be said about Cuckor. It's a bad assumption to think that a person who got entrance to a property belong at that property. There are a myriad of nefarious ways to get in that would seem legit. Nothing about Cuckor suggests he should be there. Funny how just we assumed Cuckor is the legit one, isn't it?generals3 said:
Why he should? To remove any suspicion. If he wants the other person to remain suspicious and use his right to contact people who do have authority to sort it out he shouldn't act like a smartass with a smartphone and whine to the whole internet afterwards.Silvanus said:
He didn't have any authority and therefor called people who did once he realised this couldn't be solved like mature adults, what's wrong with that?Fieldy409 said:
As for your acomparison: Well let's all mind our business and if you see someone rape or beat someone else up let's not bother intervening, after all it might all be consensual or whatever, we wouldn't want to piss anyone off by potentially accusing them. It's that easy to make absurd comparisons...
EDIT: You see this is what amazes me about this situation. Basic cautiousness would dictate letting people in locked buildings they would not have access to without your help is not ok unless that person is there for you. This is what cops would tell you, that's what employers tell you at your job, and so on.
Now in this situation most people would let it slide because they don't think that much about it and tend to assume nothing bad will happen. But can we blame someone for doing what is actually the safe thing to do? The entire video shows someone who's just calmly asking for reasonable evidence (a name surely isn't that much to ask?!) that the person truly is there for someone else and didn't just use the opportunity to trespass. He was never violent or insulting and than calmly called the police while objectively describing the situation. Where did he go wrong?
But this isn't about someone questioning whether Cuckor was a resident now is it?trunkage said:
What you're forgetting is that the dad didn't block access to the complex, the locked door did. If someone else let him into the building and this dad said "excuse me, I don't know this person, kick them out" then 100% absolutely he'd be in the wrong, no doubt about it. But not personally letting someone into the building is not the same thing as denying them access.trunkage said:
You think the friend showing up at the end makes the dad wrong, but that's doubly wrong.CaitSeith said:
A) If someone seems to be lying and it turns out they were telling the truth, that doesn't make you wrong to suspect them. If your reasons to be suspicious are valid, that doesn't change if the person isn't lying. If this interaction started with "excuse me, why are you going in there?" "I'm here to see a friend." "Oh, who are you visiting?" "I don't have to tell you that." Yes, when you ask someone which of your neighbors they know and they get defensive, that's a valid reason to be suspicious that they're not there to meet someone.
B) The friend wasn't in the building, so this person had neither a legitimate way to get into the building nor a reason to go inside in the first place. Nobody was in there waiting for him. He refused to use the callbox because he knew nobody was waiting there for him. And likely, he just wanted to wait inside the entranceway rather than outside on the sidewalk, but that doesn't change that he had neither the reason nor the means to do so.
I'm not dodging the issue, it's just a needlessly stupid thing to bring up and I don't feel the need to dwell on other people making embarassing arguments. The guy truly had no legal obligation to answer the questions. That's why the dad called the police. So that he would be obligated to answer those questions. That's literally the purpose of that course of action.ObsidianJones said:
Imagine a different scenario. Imagine a man leaving a park, pulling a crying young girl along who is hitting him and shouting that he's not her father. That could be a pedophile abducting a child. You decide to ask the man what's going on rather than witness a kidnapping. You say "Excuse me, are you her father, is she alright?", and he responds "Mind your own business, I don't have to explain myself to you." That man would be just as right as the person filming in this video, he doesn't have to explain himself to you, he has no legal obligation to answer your questions. You are in no position to decide who gets to take what child home from the park and how, you have no authority. Do you just walk away and say "well, I'm not the police, I can't do anything about that." No, you call the cops. And if it turns out he's her stepfather and she just didn't want to leave the playground yet and was having a tantrum, that doesn't somehow make calling the cops on him the wrong decision.
Oh please, don't compare what I said to invoking rape. That just makes my eyes roll. Obviously you can look at a rape and know its a rape, you can't look at this guy and know he's about to go rob somebody or something. Just like how you can't look at a guy driving a car and assume it's stolen and go bother him then act like it's his fault he gives you nothing.generals3 said:
Oh and btw, there is a chance you posted this post using a stolen device so I need your name and adress so I can come look at the device. It's just a name right? You wouldn't feel uncomfortable giving me your name like a mature adult would you?
No of course you wouldn't give me your information, I'm a stranger on the internet.
Look I honestly think it isn't that bad to be cautious and ringing the cops, but when you said it was bad the guy didn't give him any information that was the bone I had to pick. Me personally I'd have probably ignored the guy entirely, or cursed him out I've given a few strangers earfuls when my temper snapped. An actual villain might have stabbed him. I certainly wouldn't give a guy pissing me off information.
Why even approach a potential criminal, child in tow especially? Dude might have stabbed you or since it's america pulled out an assault rifle and blown you away. Why not just get some distance and then discreetly ring. The guy was trying to be the areas security guard when he isn't.
Again, the comparison with the car or even the device I use is absurd and totally besides the point. Someone in a car is someone in a car. Someone entering a building he doesn't live in and wouldn't be able to access hadn't it been because of you exiting it is not "just someone in a building". At your office you are not told to question whether people working on a pc are authorised to. You are however told not to let anyone in who hasn't a badge to pass the gates. That's what this is: someone who didn't have access to the building. If you truly want to make a comparison: someone leaves a car, forgets to close it and than someone else uses that opportunity to get inside said car. Sounds a lot more suspicious than "just driving a car" doesn't it?Fieldy409 said:
And the information he was expected to give was a name of the resident he allegedly came for or just calling said friend to come pick him up or attest he was indeed invited. That doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
And not every potential criminal is a potential murderer. If you expect someone to be a potential robber/thief/whatever that doesn't necessarily mean you also expect them to be violent. Most robbers avoid confrontation.
And why not just descreetly call the cops? Well because clarifying the sutuation without getting the cops unnecessarily sounds better, no? He probably assumed that it was likely nothing at first.
And you know what, why the hell even have gated communities or locked buildings? After all based on many reactions someone entering such an area without having the necessary key is apparently something you have to consider normal and should never worry about. Why even have the place locked than? That's just preventing normal things to occur.
Because he didn't think the guy was a criminal. He saw a regular guy (in a pink polo shirt nonetheless) enter the building and wanted to do his due diligence before letting a stranger in. If the person filming had snuck in behind him with gun tucked into his waistband and a swastika tattoo, I'm pretty sure the dad would have behaved differently. The fact that he asked what was going on rather than just call the cops is because he assumed the guy would be innocent in the first place.Fieldy409 said:
You got to it before I did. But if he was actually afraid because of what happened to his father, then I feel for that poor, poor man. He must live in a constant state of fear; seeing as tailgating is about as common as jaywalking, he must see murderers everywhere he looks![/sarcasm]evilthecat said:
You advocates of the ?upstanding citizen? are ignoring a very important point: the building was an APARTMENT building, not fucking Fort Knox. Tailgating at apartments is extremely common and is rarely a ?suspicious? act. His suspicion should have ended when it was clear the only threat was his calling the cops because he wasn?t getting the answers he was demanding and wasn?t entitled to.generals3 said:
And PLEASE, one of you answer the question so many of us have asked and you?ve all dodged: if he actually felt there was a threat, WHY INVOLVE HIS CLEARLY FRIGHTENED CHILD??? You keep dying on this hill of ?he was a stranger in a building he didn?t live in,? fine; happens literally all the time, but ok; WHATEVER. Why engage with a suspect, call the police and escalate the situation while your crying child is begging to leave??? Is his [white] pride so inflated that he would willingly endanger his child, with a smirk on his face, just to put a black person in their place?
It is not fort knox, correct.Xprimentyl said:
It is extremely common, correct.
It is usually not considered suspicious, correct.
However it is not correct behavior and techincally should be considered suspicious. Otherwise why even install locks to beging with? This citizen did what we should all actually do (but don't). Just like at the work place, I often pass through doors (not at the building entrance) the person in front of me opened. Technically that beats the purpose of having the doors in question requiring a badge. And while I would find it odd if someone would ask me to show my badge before allowing me to pass by said door I wouldn't start a tyrade about it. I would comply because his behavior, while odd, is actually the correct one.
You ask about the child. The answer is simple, he probably didn't expect the person to be violent or dangerous.
But there are plenty of non violent or dangerous people who commit crimes or delinquency. Therefor not assuming the person could be dangerous doesn't necessarily imply that there is no reason whatsoever to deny the person access to a building he shouldn't have access to.
On top of that he was outside in broad daylight, that tends to give a sense of security.
A random stranger, whom I don't even know if lives in the building or is just visiting someone, stopping me from entering and insisting to tell him whom I am visiting is also suspicious. Why should I give my friend's info to some suspicious stranger?tstorm823 said:
And you don't see this as a very douchy move, do you? Fuck him! He is lucky that he just got humiliated, and not sued for groundless accusation!
I?m calling copious amounts of bullshit on this.generals3 said:
No, we shouldn?t ?all? behave like this self-appointed security guard and you fucking know it. Human nature simply would not allow for it what with everyone harping on about the rights to privacy and free speech, do you think society would put up with every Tom, Dick and Harry running around policing each other and demanding to know everyone else?s business? Gimme a fucking break; you must be trolling.
And as to your admission that you would ?comply? if someone called you out at your job for tailgating, sure; I can?t refute a hypothetical anecdote. But I?d offer that Michel did ?comply? when he told this jackass he was there to see a friend; that was more information than a racist vigilante deserved and should have sated his suspicions.
As to the child, you say ?he probably didn?t expect the person to be dangerous.? You?re absolutely right. Which is exactly why he was confident enough to smugly call the cops despite Michel presenting no threat and his pleading child?s wishes to let the non-issue go; he was just being a fucking DICK to someone he saw himself better than. Thank you for proving that his motivations were not so noble and honorable as you and others insist on going on about.
You're completely lost. Completely and utterly lost. You were presented with a perspective and you've latched onto that perspective so completely that you can't give an inch that maybe this dad wasn't trying to be a jerk, and you think anyone who defends him in the slightest is hero worshiping the guy.Xprimentyl said:
Nobody has called him noble. Nobody has called him an "upstanding citizen". That's just you making up a position to rationalize your own bad arguments. We're defending a person who acted reasonably. That doesn't make him a hero. That just makes him not a villain. Why is him being a villain so important to you?
Passive-aggression is NOT ?acting reasonably.? He IS a villain. It?s important to me that people recognize that because, unfortunately, this type of ?reasonable? behavior is indicative of a very serious problem in this country, one that I have personally dealt with in my life, one that is written off and willfully ignored all too often, one that routinely sees one people subjugated to the will and whimsy of another and it?s not right.tstorm823 said:
The fact that you don't see that as a problem is alarming.tstorm823 said:
Ok, for all intents and purposes, Cukor was attempting to Detain [https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/detain/] Michael due to pure suspicion without Michel doing anything illegal.
Note: A police officer can do this, because they have the authority to do so. Cukor did not. Michel didn't even have to respond to Cukor, he did so as a kindness. Then Cukor proceeded to overstep his bounds. Michel had every right to stop the questioning as he was beginning to suspect Michel for something he wasn't doing. And yeah, when you get a lifetime of that, it eventually becomes too much.
It's the same concept of why Stop and Frisk [https://www.mic.com/articles/154855/this-is-what-stop-and-frisk-is-and-why-it-s-unconstitutional] did nothing but erode the trust and any good graces left between Minorities and the Government that allowed the Police to do this to them constantly. Not only do minorities have to get this treatment from the police, but now we have to get it from average citizens who use police as a bullying technique? And you expect Michel to act positively to this?
Back to Detaining, it is why Police can't arrest someone on suspicion of possible wrong doing manifesting in the future. You CAN arrest someone who is planning to do possibly wrong doing, and there's clear evidence of the future crimes (e.g. The police are presented with evidence of a bank robbery, with detailed plans and recordings on what will transpire on what date). You CAN detain someone if you witness something that appears illegal (e.g. A cop calls over a person who has a visible print of a gun in a pocket or a waistband)... but you can't detain someone until you figure out if they are doing something wrong without just cause.
A man walking into a building is not just cause. Given the Mores that everyone here states they do on the regular.
What Cukor did was upgrade a person who didn't answer his questions into a Trespasser. An illegal definition that warrants police action. You don't get to brand someone because they don't answer you. I don't get to ask you why you have blood on your shirt that you've spilled on yourself after shaving, get no answer from you, and then call the cops and say "I have someone here who's assaulted someone" simply because I didn't hear what I wanted, so I get to label you something.
That's what we get to call Slander [https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1969]. With no proof, Cukor leaped to a legally punishible branding and expressed so with the cops. A lack of evidence is not evidence, so by not answering Cukor's questions did not give Cukor evidence that Michel is a trespasser. But he willfully gave a title of witnessing an illegal act (by calling him a trespasser) without any proof of an illegal act. These are simply things you can't do, and it's not nor will it ever be on Michel to assuage Cukor's feelings.
Cukor detained. Cukor questioned. Cukor didn't get what he wanted, so he called the cops while slanderously giving Michel an illegally classification without having any proof of any illegality happening.
You asked a question of Xprimentyl of why is it so important that him that Cukor is a villian. I ask that very question to you.
Why is it so important that the majority sees Cukor as you see him when we have our own minds, we have definitions, and we don't come up with the same conclusion as you because we don't put as much stock as "Maybe Cukor could have been on to something!"?
You shouldn't hold the door for people to enter a locked building, that's true, but that's not the content of the video. The guy already has access to the building from the start; Cukor reports him as a trespasser without evidence.generals3 said: