Wypipo Held a Protest for White Teacher Who Slapped, Kicked and Pulled Locs of Sleeping Student

[EffieBlack]

115. I love the trouble you trouble you always go through to justify racist behavior

As for your “perception of where the legal remedy lies” in the Starbucks arrest, surely you know and certainly you know that I know that you know that your argument was not about the “legal remedy.”

You repeatedly insisted that the police were well within their legal authority to arrest those men solely based on the manager’s accusation and that, in fact, they had no legal requirement to conduct any further inquiry beyond that.

For example:

All of the elements of defiant trespass were readily apparent to the police. They were told by the agent of the owner that the individuals did not have permission to be there (no license), and that had been communicated to them not only by the owner, but by the police.

That doesn't meant the police are required to arrest them (as you keep implying has been asserted), but it does mean they were acting within the law.
...
Nothing within the criminal trespass statute suggests the experience of other customers is relevant to whether these two individuals were committing criminal trespass or had a valid defense. (They must have license which cannot be created by other patrons, or privilege - and nothing I have seen suggests a relevant privilege) .

Because trespassing is dependent on the absence of a license, it is the owner/management that would need to be asked if the other people doing the same thing has permission to be there; it is the property owner (or its agent) that determines whether these other people have a license.
...
So even if there are white individual present engaged in the same behavior, this one-time incident is a matter for the courts in civil rights litigation. Not the police called to the scene to remove someone on the property after the owner, or the owner's designee, has asked them to leave.
...
But, while what other customers say about uniform enforcement is highly relevant to a civil rights claim, it is irrelevant to the criminal matter.

In fact, as I pointed out to you in great detail, including case citations, the police were required by law to do more than just rely on the manager’s claim that they didn’t have permission to be there. In addition, you insisted that the affirmative defense of compliance with all conditions was irrelevant (and you did so with considerable snark and condescension) when the well settled law is that the police MUST take the affirmative defense into account when determining whether there is probable cause to make an arrest.

So, not only was your representation of the law that applied to the arrest completely wrong, your claim here that you were only opining on the available legal remedies is laughable since your opinion that a civil rights discrimination lawsuit was the only possible remedy was based on your patently incorrect view that the police were legally permitted to arrest the men without independently determining the existence of probable cause before making the arrest.

Given this, it’s difficult to take you seriously when you again, true to form, engage in rather tortured, twisted “analysis” to try to defend indefensible, racist behavior against an African American. Some people here who don’t know the law may be impressed with your “analysis,” but I’m not in the least bit,.