Started By
Message

re: 2 black guys arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks by 8 cops

Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:33 am to
Posted by REG861
Ocelot, Iowa
Member since Oct 2011
36852 posts
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:33 am to
quote:



Strawman. Talk about simplifying an issue.


No, not really, sorry. He threw out "private property rights" like it was the simple explanation to a very complex situation. I used an example of a situation that undermined the "private property rights" argument. That's not a strawman, that's a valid counter argument.

quote:


Law enforcement showed up to a call by a business that someone refused to leave the premises. That's their DUTY! When they showed up the people in question refused to leave. The cops did EXACTLY what their duty requires of them. The individuals in question had multiple opportunities to leave without being arrested. It's not the cops' fault.



i clarified my earlier comment.

quote:


That being said, the question of whether or not the demand for them to leave was reasonable or not clearly rests on the Starbucks employee who made the call, not the police. Lots of people jumping to conclusions with a lack of information. Assuming it was an example of racism is just as stupid as assuming anything else without knowing all the facts.


I blame the starbucks employees above anyone, although the two customers could have responded differently. I think the outcome probably would have been different if they were white. And look at the comments in this thread. The two guys have been called gang bangers and suspected laptop thieves on no basis of fact whatsoever.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 9:36 am
Posted by Janky
Team Primo
Member since Jun 2011
35957 posts
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:37 am to
quote:

The two guys have been called gang bangers and suspected laptop thieves on no basis of fact whatsoever.


And the cops and workers have been labeled as racists. Stop trying to make it something it is not.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
16959 posts
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:39 am to
quote:

No, not really, sorry. He threw out "private property rights" like it was the simple explanation to a very complex situation. I used an example of a situation that undermined the "private property rights" argument. That's not a strawman, that's a valid counter argument.


No, it's not. You suggested private property rights are not an "end all be all," which he never suggested, and then mentioned a scenario which had nothing to do with the context in discussion, which is where the argument regarding private property rights was applied and was totally relevant. It's a textbook strawman.

As it pertains to the conduct of the police in this scenario, private property rights are, in fact, the justification for their response and ultimate actions of forcibly removing the subjects from the store. They weren't refused service.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram