COPS COMPLAIN ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE WASTING POLICE TIME CALLING 911 WITH IRRATIONAL FEARS OF BLACKS

[Lee-Lee]

25. Yes, basically

In some states maybe in the second example the police would have cause to not enforce, depending on how the Stars anti-discrimination laws are written and if they are written in a way that allows that kind of negation of the rights of a property owner. But that’s a maybe, and would depend a lot on case law.

Essentially when it comes to trespassing laws I am not aware of any states that have the laws written to allow the police to second guess a property owners reasons for trespassing a person or persons. There are plenty of anti-discrimination statutes that allow action to be taken after the fact if it was done in a discriminatory manner, but none of them render the trespassing laws void on the spot on the judgement of the cops on scene.

As I have said before, that doesn’t mean that the property owner isn’t violating another law. If the state or city has an anti-discrimination law it may violate it or it may violate federal laws. However, that doesn’t cancel out any trespassing statute.

I know it doesn’t seem fair or just, and perhaps your right.

The person wronged by the discriminatory act has act still has recourse against the property owner or manager if the act violated anti-discrimination laws.

I will go back to my example of a landlord. Let’s say a landlord has an apartment building. He allows white tenants to often pay late and have pets in violation of the lease, but any black tenants who are a little late or violate the same rules in the lease he immediately moves to evict.

Even though the landlord is being discriminatory in how he enforced the rules, if he uses the proper procedures to effect the eviction then the police still have to serve the eviction. The eviction is still legal, because all the grounds for an eviction were legally met.

It doesn’t matter if he evicted the person for having one dog and the white guy across the hall has 12, when the police are called to serve the eviction they must. They ant question the landlord about why he is evicting the person or why he didn’t evict someone else for the same reason.

However, that doesn’t mean the landlord was totally legal. If he evicted them in a way that showed racial bias and they can show that he did then there is a case for them to go to civil court or file with the proper government agency.

But that doesn’t mean the cops were wrong to do the eviction when they did.

One thing you may not be considering here. If you want the cops to be allowed to judge if every complainant has motivations that are “pure enough” in a complaint, well that’s a very, very subjective thing. Where does that line get drawn? Who gets to second guess the cops? And if you allow them that leeway what’s to stop them from using it the exact opposite of how you want, to dismiss complaints by minority citizens against white people based on the same standard that they get to make up? Let’s say a group of people in confederate flag shirts come into a black owned restaurant known for its activism and start saying a bunch of racist things. Not disruptive or loud, but at normal tones. What if the cops come and say “I know I’ve been in here and heard people use the N word who were black and you didn’t kick them out, and you allow other forms of controversial speech in here, I see people wearing Malcolm-X shirts that are a political statement, so I can’t kick them out because you are not evenly applying the rules”?

That’s the kind of judgement call your looking for cops to make and be empowered to, and you have to think about how anything like that may be exercised in a way you don’t like and not just the way you want it to assuming everyone will have the same subjective standard you do.