Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1110
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby mplsjaromir » December 22nd, 2015, 9:46 pm

Chip Whitley wrote:Trying to act like what is clearly private property is somehow public property is a waste of time and not what this country is about.
No shit, this country is built on pillaging black bodies.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2792
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby mulad » December 22nd, 2015, 10:34 pm

Moderation note: I have been concerned about some of the directions this thread has taken in the last day or so. After mulling things over, I feel the need to mention that the protections we have for free speech and related issues are often there to protect the minority from the majority and allow weaker parties to have a check against those who are more powerful.

In particular, I want to say that even though white supremacist groups may only directly represent small groups, they are not exactly coming from a minority position. I don't think it's appropriate to compare their public displays to those of BLM activists. The first group aims to maintain or expand the powerful position they already have, while BLM is highlighting the terrible adverse effects that their community continues to suffer and is trying to find ways to fix those problems. It is a false equivalence to look at these groups as though they are somehow the same.

I don't enjoy intervening in these conversations by deleting things, particularly since bits about undesirable topics often become interweaved with other interesting issues in comments, but I/we may start clamping down more. I don't want to dwell on this too long, since we seem to be moving away from that particular discussion anyway, but please try to keep in mind the difference in power between the various parties as we talk about them. Equality is the goal here, but it is not the starting position.

Chauncey87
Landmark Center
Posts: 200
Joined: August 20th, 2012, 9:53 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby Chauncey87 » December 23rd, 2015, 1:21 am

mplsjaromir wrote:
Chip Whitley wrote:Trying to act like what is clearly private property is somehow public property is a waste of time and not what this country is about.
No shit, this country is built on pillaging black bodies.

Seem to recall it was mostly White European's from the "lesser" countries doing a lot of the digging and building on the East. Also a ton of Asians to help build railroads etc once the US expanded west. This county was built on the pillaging and blood of many different races.
I hate to say I am going to be at the MOA during the protests, to many gifts to buy and the closest mall to my home and job. I hope to avoid whatever confrontation they seem hard pressed to shove into shoppers faces. Silver lining BLM scares off so many shoppers I will be able to pop in and pop out and not need to spend over a half hour just leaving the parking garage.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 847
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby Tiller » December 23rd, 2015, 2:35 am

Chip Whitley wrote: You're trying really hard but the MoA is without question private property in terms of the law. Ideals and "defacto functions" don't count in real life. Trying to act like what is clearly private property is somehow public property is a waste of time and not what this country is about. The tax breaks that MoA has gotten over the years don't make it a public space. Almost 100% of buildings in this country have received some sort of tax break. If tax breaks make a private building public, I'm going to move in to a house that received a First Time Homebuyers Credit.
This doesn't actually address what I said. I'm pretty sure I actually agreed with "The MoA is without question private property in terms of the law." in that post. What I'm saying, is that it *shouldn't* be treated that way in terms of allowing the curtailing of certain constitutional protections. If a law is unjust/broken, I don't argue until I'm blue in the face "b-but that's the law!" Instead, I push for *changing* that law. I think a lot of people probably talk past each other on topics like this, because while one side argues the legality of X situation, the other side argues the morality of it.

Do you have an opinion that you would like to offer on the topic of the privatization of public spaces and the resulting effects on the applicability of various constitutional protections?
(a bit of a mouthful, but that's what my thoughts in that post were mostly about)

Another valid point of contention would probably be on the morality of Law and Order vs. Civil Disobedience.

Chauncey87
Landmark Center
Posts: 200
Joined: August 20th, 2012, 9:53 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby Chauncey87 » December 23rd, 2015, 5:25 am

Sorry for the confusion. My post was in reply what Mpls wrote. I forgot to delete what you posted.

The topic of privatization of public spaces or in some cases the idea of private spaces being considered public is a good topic. That has been brought up on this forum in the past. Was it in the Viking's front yard thread? I do not get around to posting often, however I do like reading what has been said.

User avatar
Chip Whitley
Metrodome
Posts: 77
Joined: January 14th, 2015, 2:27 am
Location: MPLS

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby Chip Whitley » December 23rd, 2015, 8:48 am

Tiller wrote:
Chip Whitley wrote: This doesn't actually address what I said. I'm pretty sure I actually agreed with "The MoA is without question private property in terms of the law." in that post. What I'm saying, is that it *shouldn't* be treated that way in terms of allowing the curtailing of certain constitutional protections. If a law is unjust/broken, I don't argue until I'm blue in the face "b-but that's the law!" Instead, I push for *changing* that law. I think a lot of people probably talk past each other on topics like this, because while one side argues the legality of X situation, the other side argues the morality of it.

Do you have an opinion that you would like to offer on the topic of the privatization of public spaces and the resulting effects on the applicability of various constitutional protections?
(a bit of a mouthful, but that's what my thoughts in that post were mostly about)
Just to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that free speech should apply to private property in certain circumstances?

No, I really don't have an opinion on the privatization of public spaces and the resulting effects on the applicability of various constitutional protections because it doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about. The fact that the Mall invites the public onto its private property should not mean they have to give up any of the rights as property owners. It's a very slippery slope to say that if private owner allows the public into their building, that they should suddenly get constitutional rights of public land. The owners of MoA have the right to say who can come onto their property and what they can do there, as long as they follow a legal process.

I don't really see this as a morality issue. Take away the fact that the group trying to protest is BLM which creates bias and it's really a pretty clean cut issue.

trigonalmayhem

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby trigonalmayhem » December 23rd, 2015, 9:19 am

No it's only private by our current reading of the law. It's very much a grey area that could still be changed by court decisions. I don't see the courts doing that here anytime soon, but it's really not a simple property rights issue like a lot people try to frame it as. I honestly think the subsidy argument is a weak one too, but Tiller laid out the reasons why it's still very much up for debate quite well. And I also still think the transit station and privatization of street crossings by the mall are reason enough to consider it (or at least parts of it) public ROW. It would be ridiculously hard to commute to the block south of the MOA via transit without passing through mall property. I know because I did exactly that for over a year.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby RailBaronYarr » December 23rd, 2015, 9:37 am

Not a slippery slope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard ... _v._Robins

California managed to extend its free speech rights to malls due to the de facto nature of how they're used as public gathering spaces. They have come across this ruling several times since 1980 and evaluated the pros/cons/legality of how the ruling applies to different circumstances. For example, they upheld Costco's restrictions on soliciting and assembly because "stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center."

In 2012 they re-visited it again:
The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's holding that Pruneyard applies only to "common areas" of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts.
None of this has anything to do with public subsidies implying public spaces. We've talked about that here before; it was challenged to the MNSC, and lost. But all MN would have to do to give the protection of free speech like California would be to change the state constitution to be more affirmative. This would be very difficult to do, but it's a choice we have.

We'd need to make a strong case that places like private malls (along with a few other places) have replaced public spaces as we used to know them. Places where people gather, linger, meet others, go for a walk, etc. We'd need to convince people that privatized places like the MOA have abused their security power toward certain racial/ethnic groups, and that certain constitutional rights should apply. We have the ability to control the police (who clearly have many of the same issues as private spaces). More broadly, we'd need to make the case that there's a social good in giving people the right to assemble and speak in a place like a mall (or a skyway, etc). That being around other people, even ones who don't share your particular worldview, is generally good for people. This would be a tough task, one I don't see happening. That doesn't mean people aren't entitled to think it's how the law should work. And we have 35 years in California to show that commerce doesn't end and people survive and the notion of "what America is about" isn't dead.

kirby96
Union Depot
Posts: 357
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 11:30 am

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby kirby96 » December 23rd, 2015, 10:05 am

mulad wrote:In particular, I want to say that even though white supremacist groups may only directly represent small groups, they are not exactly coming from a minority position. I don't think it's appropriate to compare their public displays to those of BLM activists. The first group aims to maintain or expand the powerful position they already have, while BLM is highlighting the terrible adverse effects that their community continues to suffer and is trying to find ways to fix those problems. It is a false equivalence to look at these groups as though they are somehow the same.
...but it is NOT a false equivalence in terms of protection under the Constitution to freely assemble, which is precisely the point that was being made and is, of course, at the heart of the legal wrangling over the BLM protest at the mall (and thus very much on-topic, I think).

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 820
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby LakeCharles » December 23rd, 2015, 10:31 am

RailBaronYarr wrote:Not a slippery slope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard ... _v._Robins

California managed to extend its free speech rights to malls due to the de facto nature of how they're used as public gathering spaces. They have come across this ruling several times since 1980 and evaluated the pros/cons/legality of how the ruling applies to different circumstances. For example, they upheld Costco's restrictions on soliciting and assembly because "stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center."
...
And we have 35 years in California to show that commerce doesn't end and people survive and the notion of "what America is about" isn't dead.
Interesting, I didn't know that. It provides a great example. Thanks for sharing.

WHS
Landmark Center
Posts: 202
Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 am

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby WHS » December 23rd, 2015, 8:32 pm

kirby96 wrote:
...but it is NOT a false equivalence in terms of protection under the Constitution to freely assemble, which is precisely the point that was being made and is, of course, at the heart of the legal wrangling over the BLM protest at the mall (and thus very much on-topic, I think).
Again, just want to back you up here. When you're talking about free speech bringing up things like neo-Nazis is absolutely appropriate because you'd be extending the same rights to them. This isn't some spurious connection or misleading hypothetical; things like the Skokie case have actually happened.

Presumably MOA would find hosting a white supremacist rally significantly more objectionable than hosting a BLM protest, but if it suddenly becomes a public space, it loses its capacity to stop either one. That's precisely why I find the mall's current legal strategy pretty dumb, since it seems to place that private space designation -- which, ideological questions aside, is of significant value to the mall -- at risk for no practical gain.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1110
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby mplsjaromir » December 23rd, 2015, 11:50 pm

The BLM MOA demonstrations extend beyond mere 1st Amendment or private property statute. It's about how business, culture and law intersect.

The MOA bombards the public with advertisements featuring stylish, multicultural pals gallivanting at the mall as a worthwhile and fulfilling activity. BLM seeks to end the practice that the mall can plead the people and their government for monetary enrichment without also allowing the actualizing of other needs. The mall wants people to shop all day, eat the mall's food, imbibe in their drink and then rest their head in their inns without considering anything beyond consumption.

Asking people to visit the mall, but strictly on it's terms, is a concept that BLM rejects. The mall wants the coolness, styles, music, labor and disposable income from Poc but none of the baggage. BLM says no, an idea so radical to the corporate leaders of MOA, they are completely dumbfounded as evidenced by their conduct today. One can point to court rulings as evidence that the mall is private property, yet they spend millions to promulgate and lobby. Only a pendant man would consider the mall a non-public place.

Basically the mall wants it cake and eat it too. For the most part the public and our elected officials have been all too happy to oblige. Now Triple Five LLC is scared that a small group has shattered the image Triple Five has schemed so hard to purport.

Side note: The Skokie NSPA incident is not close to BLM MOA. Skokie never advertised to Neo-Nazis to come visit. The NSPA chose Skokie because of the predilection of Jews and particularly Holocaust survivors to settle in Skokie. BLM chose the mall for its visibility, not because the majority of its shoppers have been traumatized by peaceful protests to end uneven police violence.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3939
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby Anondson » December 24th, 2015, 11:26 am


mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1110
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby mplsjaromir » December 27th, 2015, 9:34 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... rime-wave/

In the end, 2015 saw no ‘war on cops’ and no ‘national crime wave’

Crime is still near all time lows in this country, 2015 will be the second safest year for law enforcement in recorded US history. Yet 70% people believe crime is getting worse. People like Cam Winton, John Telvin and the North Loop reused furniture baron are irresponsible.

bandar_seri_begawan
Block E
Posts: 22
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 4:35 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby bandar_seri_begawan » December 27th, 2015, 5:28 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... rime-wave/

In the end, 2015 saw no ‘war on cops’ and no ‘national crime wave’

Crime is still near all time lows in this country, 2015 will be the second safest year for law enforcement in recorded US history. Yet 70% people believe crime is getting worse. People like Cam Winton, John Telvin and the North Loop reused furniture baron are irresponsible.
(Violent) crime in Minneapolis has been trending upward since 2011, so it would seem that Cam Winton and the like are justified in their comments.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1110
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby mplsjaromir » December 27th, 2015, 7:26 pm

My dude Cam suggested martial law, a ridiculous idea.
Startribune wrote:

Officials caution against reading too much into the rising crime rates — a product of underlying social conditions like poverty, racial discrimination and chronic unemployment — saying that sharp variations in the numbers may be misleading when considering long-term crime trends, which show that current levels are still hovering around historic lows in Minneapolis and other large U.S. cities.

WHS
Landmark Center
Posts: 202
Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 am

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby WHS » December 28th, 2015, 5:26 pm

I'm not well-versed enough in crime statistics to say whether there's a positive, negative, or neutral trend, but any proposed source for such a trend that is essentially political rather than socioeconomic should come under pretty heavy scrutiny.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 820
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby LakeCharles » December 29th, 2015, 12:38 pm

No charges in Tamir Rice case. If police can kill 12 year olds and grand juries let them off without even a slap on the wrist, you can see why BLM is so insistent that there not be a grand jury in the Jamar Clark case.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1719
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby amiller92 » December 30th, 2015, 11:09 am

Only a "trend" if you cherry pick the start date and, to a lesser extent, don't adjust for population.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1719
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

Postby amiller92 » December 30th, 2015, 11:12 am

LakeCharles wrote:No charges in Tamir Rice case. If police can kill 12 year olds and grand juries let them off without even a slap on the wrist, you can see why BLM is so insistent that there not be a grand jury in the Jamar Clark case.
Tamir Rice should be the example that gets through to everyone. A child in a park shot 1.5 seconds into his encounter with the police after a call for a "probably fake" gun. How can anyone not see the tragedy there?

Even more so because the "probably fake" gun does make it a difficult case to treat criminally.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest