[Politcs] When your KID knows better than calling the police on someone simply because he's Black.

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
Shadowstar38 said:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
generals3 said:
Yeah I meant Cukor, sorry about that.

The reason why i'm mostly looking at it from Cukor's perspective because he is the person being shamed and accused of all sorts of things. Michel doesn't need any more empathy, he's already portrayed as the hero who stood up to the evil racist white ****.

And Michel, in my opinion, lost all privilege for sympathy when he decided to post the video to appeal to the regressive far left hate brigade on the internet. That's an action he made ex-post, after he had time to sit down and think about the situation and realise there may be more to it than what he thinks.
I rather be shamed than arrested on a Trumped Up Charge. But that's me.

Again, you're condemning Michel for things Cukor could have done at the door. It might have been more than to it than he thinks. He didn't have to go nuclear. To Michel's perspective and many, many others, though, Cukor didn't give Michel the same benefit of the doubt so many others are asking us to give Cukor and escalated.

I already stated that Michel could have handled the confrontation better. I still believe that. No need to curse in front of a kid. I will never be a fan of him for that. But yes, for people to learn that your fears do not make others have to capitulate so you can feel better, I think Michel had to post it. Because many of us are tired of having to live our lives trying to make others feel better.

Yes & no. He did enter a building he shouldn't have had access to. So he started the situation. He than refused to answer reasonable questions so he participated to polonging the situation. The escalation was a necessity due to a total lack of cooperation. How many people have said here that Cukor can't impose anything on Michel? Well, that's exactly why calling the cops was the inevitable outcome of the situation which had evolved to an impasse with both refusing to comply to the other's request.
Not reasonable questions if it involved divulging information about a third party. A physically disabled person at that.

And cooperation doesn't come in the form of just doing what someone says. It's very important that people understand that. No where in our Constitution does it say that we must, to create a just and functioning republic... give up all the info someone needs so they can feel comfortable. In fact, we have several factors protecting our privacy from others. Even the police.

The information he was going to give up is information he would have given up to anyone close to him if he had to call her up had no one opened the door him or information he ended up giving in the end anyway (her name). Had Cukor started asking for all sorts of information like Michel's full name, place of living and what not. Than sure I can understand someone not wanting to give that.
So, the problem is that we're going to go with the assumption that would be enough for Cukor. Again, it's going under the mindset that one is reasonable and basically Mr. Rogers while the other one is spiteful for spiteful sakes.

Do we know Cukor's intimate knowledge of the building? Does he know every tenant by name? I live in a community that the townhouses have to be stacked or we would hear everytime one of us sneezes. I see my neighbors all the time.

I haven't a clue what any of their names are.

So it would just stop at the name? If Cukor didn't know that name, would he just be satisfied? Or would he, being the guy that seems very inquisitive to start with, require more information?

In fact, according to some articles, Cathy isn't even her real name. Michel was thinking so far ahead that he couldn't trust Cukor that he instantly addressed her with another name so Cukor wouldn't have that.
Is that true? I have seen an article state Michel was outside on the sidewalk ...[/quote]

As far as the info we can get in these articles [https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/christopher-chris-cukor-san-francisco-video/].

The child still begs his father to hang up and for them to leave. Then Michel?s friend shows up; a handicapped woman named Lisa.

"Hello," a woman can be heard yelling out near the end of the video. Michel had said she was handicapped. He says: "Hi, Cathy. I love you."
He doesn't seem that "aggressive" to me (neither does Michel by the way). And the information he would have given away is the same as he would have to anyone who would have seen him buzz her appartment in the building. He wasn't asked a full bio...
Literally, we don't even know that. For what is clear and undisputed is what's on the video. We don't know how Cukor approached him before Michel started recording.

Legitimately, Michel could have been a right asshole before he shot the video and changed his demeanor when he knew he was going to record. I doubt that given the mannerism of Cukor and his son, but it's a possibility. But the fact is, we don't know. We are making assumptions of how it happened before the video was made. Cukor could have easily asked for Michel's full bio and he started to feel threatened because he doesn't know who Cukor is, just as much as Cukor doesn't know who Michel is.

Millions of people cross the streets when the lights are red because they believe it's safe when they see no cars coming from either side. Some however prefer to avoid doing that because "they never know". The latter is clearly the safer and more correct thing to do. In this case it's the same, while most people allow tailgaiting ideally we shouldn't, we can't blame someone for breaking customs by doing what should be done. If there were evidence he broke customs due to nefarious motives than sure, the whole situation this video created would be justified, but that evidence doesn't exist. It's purely in the minds of people quick to judge white-non white interactions.
And it's illegal. It's a fineable offense. And no one calls the cops on anyone who crosses the street on red.

Absolutely the point.

Because if you go to another country and you try that, everyone looks at you weird. Again, you take the Mores of your culture and you understand them for what they are. Are the Mores wrong? That's not up to me. That's up to the culture. If we stood up at one and said no more 'tailgating' (I literally didn't know there was a term for that until this story), fine. Mores gone. Everyone who does it now is doing it knowing we as a people consider it a malicious act.

But that hasn't been done. And every day we're having this discussion, another couple of million people in this country alone are doing it without any fear, repercussions, or thought of anything wrong. If you live in that society, you can easily feel if everyone else does it, I can too.

And you can easily feel unjustly prosecuted when you have the cops called on you for doing what everyone else does.

When Broad, Socially Accepted Practices are denied to you, that is inequality. It's as simple as that. Your feelings of it aside, you're talking about a handful of like-minded people (or hell, let's be generous, tens of thousands or even more) such as yourself to literally once again... Millions of people who do it and Millions of people who let them.

Why shouldn't Michel feel unjustly punished when the reality of the society around him is what it is?

I can understand that. But in this instance he was initially in the wrong, custom or no custom. And while the fact tailgaiting is done by most may make his initial reaction understandible as his initial gut feeling may have told him to take offense this doesn't excuse what he has done afterwards: use the internet to shame someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong and who's actions will only be judged based on his skin color and the skin color of Michel.
And this is the meat of it. Wrong is subjective with the society around you.

It wasn't wrong to beat, rape, and use women as objects before society came together as a whole and said we don't treat humans like that. It wasn't wrong to lynch, lie, and steal from a black person before society came together and said not today, not any more. It wasn't wrong to blackmail a gay person to keep the secret of their homosexuality for if the knowledge of their desires got out, they would be persecuted for the rest of their days. Society recently said we've had enough of that shit.

Once again, I rather be shamed than sent to jail on trumped up charges. You and I might differ on that, and that's a gulf we can't cross if that's the situation.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.
Not at all, he did not do "NOTHING", he entered a building he should not have access to. If I enter your home by slipping through your door when you leave you wouldn't say I did nothing.
The fact most people decide to ignore the type of infraction Michel committed does not make the infraction just go away. It's the same with pedestrians crossing the street when the lights are red and no cars are in sight. Most people do it but it's an infranction none the less. Michel, did at that time trespass and refused to aleviate concerns with regards to his trespassing as such the police was called and given all the information they required so they could come and assess the situation.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,231
239
68
generals3 said:
CaitSeith said:
generals3 said:
someone who objectively didn't do anything wrong
Falsely accusing someone with the police IS objectively wrong.
What did he accuse him of? trespassing? Well he didn't have access to the building yet let himself in, he refused to provide any information (at all) that would suggest he is indeed invited and someone would have opened the door for him had he not tailgated. So as far as the evidence goes: he's a tresspasser. Had he not entered the building or had the door been opened by the person inviting him than the accusation would have been entirely false. Unfortunately for Michel at that point in time he was a trespasser.
If you need to reach for such loopholes, it's no longer objective. I wouldn't have shamed Cukor; I would have sued his pants off! I got invited to my friend's apartment, and he has no authority to revoke such invitation.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
generals3 said:
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.
Not at all, he did not do "NOTHING", he entered a building he should not have access to. If I enter your home by slipping through your door when you leave you wouldn't say I did nothing.
The fact most people decide to ignore the type of infraction Michel committed does not make the infraction just go away. It's the same with pedestrians crossing the street when the lights are red and no cars are in sight. Most people do it but it's an infranction none the less. Michel, did at that time trespass and refused to aleviate concerns with regards to his trespassing as such the police was called and given all the information they required so they could come and assess the situation.
So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.
 

Nielas

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
21
Can anyone clarify the legal issues here?

AFAIK you are only trespassing if you the property owner tells you to leave and you do not. When you rent an apartment, the building's owners give you the right to invite non-tenants to your building. So could Michel be even considered a trespasser unless the building owners explicitly banned him from the building? He had permission to be in the building from an authorized tenant, so he had permission to enter building through the front door. Is there a legal requirement that he be explicitly let in by the tenant who invited him?
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.
It wasn't based on absolutely nothing. Even the OP admits the thing Michael was doing is a thing that's not supposed to be permissible to some degree, so looking into what that's about isn't unreasonable. Cukor displayed a higher about of vigilance than people expect from the average citizen and the basic assumption is he wouldn't have cared nearly as much if Michael was white? It's not an unreasonable theory either. But even after watching the video a few times I don't see anything based on the context to suggest definite racial prejudice. Just feels like basic human miscommunication viewed through a political lens.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
Shadowstar38 said:
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
I think the point was if we're going off the idea of innocence until proven guilty, then the declarations of racism seem to be jumping the gun. The gif is funny regardless though.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using 'Innocent until proven guilty' to defend a guy who assumed a guy was guilty of doing wrong based on NOTHING.
It wasn't based on absolutely nothing. Even the OP admits the thing Michael was doing is a thing that's not supposed to be permissible to some degree, so looking into what that's about isn't unreasonable. Cukor displayed a higher about of vigilance than people expect from the average citizen and the basic assumption is he wouldn't have cared nearly as much if Michael was white? It's not an unreasonable theory either. But even after watching the video a few times I don't see anything based on the context to suggest definite racial prejudice. Just feels like basic human miscommunication viewed through a political lens.
Except he wasnt trespassing, he was waiting for his friend who then verified he was allowed to be there.

Racism is alive and well and it only helps racism to pretend otherwise.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Saelune said:
Except he wasnt trespassing, he was waiting for his friend who then verified he was allowed to be there.

Racism is alive and well and it only helps racism to pretend otherwise.
And the situation came to a halt upon that realization. As it should.

I don't doubt the existence of racism. I doubt how applicable that characterization fits in this specific context.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
I rather be shamed than arrested on a Trumped Up Charge. But that's me.

Again, you're condemning Michel for things Cukor could have done at the door. It might have been more than to it than he thinks. He didn't have to go nuclear. To Michel's perspective and many, many others, though, Cukor didn't give Michel the same benefit of the doubt so many others are asking us to give Cukor and escalated.

I already stated that Michel could have handled the confrontation better. I still believe that. No need to curse in front of a kid. I will never be a fan of him for that. But yes, for people to learn that your fears do not make others have to capitulate so you can feel better, I think Michel had to post it. Because many of us are tired of having to live our lives trying to make others feel better.
But he wasn't arrested now was he? And what trumped up charges? He calmly explained to the police everything that happened. It's not as if he made wild claims like "he forced himself through the door", "he's being violent" and whatnot. And once the friend arrived he stops the involvement with the police. The idea of him being a trespasser was at that poin founded. He entered a building he shouldn't have been able to enter and claimed to do so because he was invited by someone he refused to identify or call up. In the end, Michel has been temporarily and anonymously been suspected of trespassing by two individuals; Cukor and the police officer on the line. Cukor has been shamed and villified publicly for however long the internet wants to. I'd rather have the former than the latter.

Not reasonable questions if it involved divulging information about a third party. A physically disabled person at that.

And cooperation doesn't come in the form of just doing what someone says. It's very important that people understand that. No where in our Constitution does it say that we must, to create a just and functioning republic... give up all the info someone needs so they can feel comfortable. In fact, we have several factors protecting our privacy from others. Even the police.
He wasn't obligated to, correct. And that is why the police was called, so they could resolve the impasse.

So, the problem is that we're going to go with the assumption that would be enough for Cukor. Again, it's going under the mindset that one is reasonable and basically Mr. Rogers while the other one is spiteful for spiteful sakes.

Do we know Cukor's intimate knowledge of the building? Does he know every tenant by name? I live in a community that the townhouses have to be stacked or we would hear everytime one of us sneezes. I see my neighbors all the time.

I haven't a clue what any of their names are.

So it would just stop at the name? If Cukor didn't know that name, would he just be satisfied? Or would he, being the guy that seems very inquisitive to start with, require more information?
You're correct, we don't know how he would have reacted. Just like Cukor didn't know what Michel was up to. What we do know is that Michel refused to alleviate his concerns and even acted in a way that would increase concerns. "Just walk away" is typically not the kind of wording you'd expect from someone who isn't doing anything wrong. In my eyes both acted and reacted poorly in the situation. But yet only one gets to be publicly shamed and villified.

Literally, we don't even know that. For what is clear and undisputed is what's on the video. We don't know how Cukor approached him before Michel started recording.
And that's the point, we only know what we saw. And I don't think what we saw justifies the hate crusade against Cukor.

And it's illegal. It's a fineable offense. And no one calls the cops on anyone who crosses the street on red.

Absolutely the point.
Not at all, the point was that some people are more cautious than others. When you cross the streets when the light is red you're putting yourself into unnecessary danger. When you allow someone into a locked building who shouldn't have been able to access it otherwise you're putting the residents in danger.

Because if you go to another country and you try that, everyone looks at you weird. Again, you take the Mores of your culture and you understand them for what they are. Are the Mores wrong? That's not up to me. That's up to the culture. If we stood up at one and said no more 'tailgating' (I literally didn't know there was a term for that until this story), fine. Mores gone. Everyone who does it now is doing it knowing we as a people consider it a malicious act.

But that hasn't been done. And every day we're having this discussion, another couple of million people in this country alone are doing it without any fear, repercussions, or thought of anything wrong. If you live in that society, you can easily feel if everyone else does it, I can too.

And you can easily feel unjustly prosecuted when you have the cops called on you for doing what everyone else does.

When Broad, Socially Accepted Practices are denied to you, that is inequality. It's as simple as that. Your feelings of it aside, you're talking about a handful of like-minded people (or hell, let's be generous, tens of thousands or even more) such as yourself to literally once again... Millions of people who do it and Millions of people who let them.

Why shouldn't Michel feel unjustly punished when the reality of the society around him is what it is?
Because mores aren't rights. That is why. The mores of crossing the lights when red didn't instantly turn them into legal actions and doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to question your action afterwards. And one should realize that not everyone adopts every single custom that others adopt. That's diversity. You shouldn't always take any unusual event or behavior as something personal. That's best way to develop a victim complex.

And this is the meat of it. Wrong is subjective with the society around you.

It wasn't wrong to beat, rape, and use women as objects before society came together as a whole and said we don't treat humans like that. It wasn't wrong to lynch, lie, and steal from a black person before society came together and said not today, not any more. It wasn't wrong to blackmail a gay person to keep the secret of their homosexuality for if the knowledge of their desires got out, they would be persecuted for the rest of their days. Society recently said we've had enough of that shit.

Once again, I rather be shamed than sent to jail on trumped up charges. You and I might differ on that, and that's a gulf we can't cross if that's the situation.
But no one was jailed based on trumped up charges now was he? And since his story checked out the police would have found that one once on the spot and nothing would have happened. It's not like Cukor fabricated a scenario and evidence.

And yes, what is wrong is subjective. But here's the question, is it wrong to be cautious and question tailgating? It may be annoying, sure, but wrong? The only reason why this scenario was considered wrong is because there was an assumption of racial bias. No one is shaming Cukor for questioning the practice of tailgating, he's being shamed for doing so towards a black person. It's all about the racial element.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Saelune said:
So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.
But there was evidence he was trespassing. Entering a building you are not supposed to have been able to enter is evidence of that. Again, Michel had not been given access to the building by any resident at that point, yet he entered it. That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did. You however are not suspecting anyone of anything and are not trying to investigate anything. You just jump to the conclusion Cukor is racist, period. There is a very big nuance here.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,259
2,845
118
Country
United Kingdom
generals3 said:
That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did.
Well, no, it's not really what he did: when he called the cops he claimed Michel was a trespasser. He did not have proof (or even really reasonable grounds for such an assumption) but he stated it as fact to the authorities.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
generals3 said:
Saelune said:
So you DONT believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

Either I am not wrong for calling the caller racist, or you are wrong for defending the caller's actions. Pick one, cause that is the hole you dug yourself into.
But there was evidence he was trespassing. Entering a building you are not supposed to have been able to enter is evidence of that. Again, Michel had not been given access to the building by any resident at that point, yet he entered it. That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did. You however are not suspecting anyone of anything and are not trying to investigate anything. You just jump to the conclusion Cukor is racist, period. There is a very big nuance here.
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Saelune said:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.
Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Silvanus said:
generals3 said:
That doesn't make him guilty as charged but that does make him a suspect and as such the situation can justify further investigation, which is exactly what Cukor did.
Well, no, it's not really what he did: when he called the cops he claimed Michel was a trespasser. He did not have proof (or even really reasonable grounds for such an assumption) but he stated it as fact to the authorities.
Well yes you're right, he forgot to say "i suspect him to be...". But afterwards he describes the situation objectively; he said he was tailgating, he claimed to be invited by a friend but refused to buzz that person or even just give the name of the resident inviting him. He didn't just leave it at "There is a black trespasser here, send some help!"
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
generals3 said:
Saelune said:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.
Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.
You. You were wrong. Stop digging your hole.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Saelune said:
You. You were wrong. Stop digging your hole.
How so? The only person making strong allegations here is you. Is this an attempt to deflect the discussion from your own prejudices and how it affects the way you look at things and instantly judge people based on a 3min video?
 

Nielas

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
21
generals3 said:
Saelune said:
But he wasn't trespassing.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just admit you and the caller were wrong. You're allowed to do that.
Being wrong =/= jumping to conclusions. Yes the caller was wrong about Michel being a trespasser, which is why he called off the police at the end upon realizing that. That doesn't change the fact Michel was entering a building he wasn't supposed to be able to enter at that time. Which is what made him a suspect of trespassing.
However, Michel WAS supposed to be able to enter the building because he was an invited guest of the tenant. He might not have a key to unlock the front door but there was nothing legally or ethically preventing him from crossing the threshold. The other guy made an incorrect assumption and then jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on no real evidence and tried to justify his actions on the basis of not being able to obtain more evidence.

ASIDE: From System Design viewpoint (my specialty) the door buzzer system is an extremely weak security system with a ton of built-in ambiguities that make this type of situation a regular occurrence. This leads to one citizen violating another citizen's rights in order to achieve some extra security.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Nielas said:
However, Michel WAS supposed to be able to enter the building because he was an invited guest of the tenant. He might not have a key to unlock the front door but there was nothing legally or ethically preventing him from crossing the threshold. The other guy made an incorrect assumption and then jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on no real evidence and tried to justify his actions on the basis of not being able to obtain more evidence.

ASIDE: From System Design viewpoint (my specialty) the door buzzer system is an extremely weak security system with a ton of built-in ambiguities that make this type of situation a regular occurrence. This leads to one citizen violating another citizen's rights in order to achieve some extra security.
No he was not. To have access he would have had to use a key or get buzzed in by the person inviting him. The fact someone invites you doesn't mean you are able to access the building. The resident has to enable that access by either giving you a key or unlocking the door. Here the person who unlocked the door was someone who didn't invite him and had no obligation whatsoever to open the door for Michel. What Michel did is force Cukor to be the one to have given him access to the building by tailgating. Now to be clear, it's something people do all the time, but something Cukor didn't feel comfortable with as he didn't know Michel.

And let's not forget that the only thing Cukor asked for was Michel to enter the "right way"; by buzzing his friend. Something he would have had to do had Cukor not inadvertently allowed him in by leaving the building. When you go as far as refusing to do what you should have done anyway you're not helping your case. I can understand that due to the custom of overlooking tailgating in appartment complexes you might be annoyed by having to do that but it is nothing unreasonable to expect. After all it is what he would have needed to do had Cukor not left the building at that moment.