The Root: Loitering Laws

From iGeek
Revision as of 16:24, 26 July 2018 by Ari (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<html><iframe width="560" height="315" style="padding:10px;" align="right" src="" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-med...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Look at the first two examples:

  1. The black men in Starbucks didn't get arrested for sitting at Starbucks while black. They had a problem at THAT starbucks with people loitering all day, and the known SJW worker asked them to buy something or leave, and they said, "call the cops". So she did. (And it was trespassing not loitering). That's not about race, but actions. If starbucks asked me to buy something or leave, I would buy something or leave -- and there's no evidence ever presented that she wouldn't have done the same to a couple of rude white guys.
  2. The guy arrested for selling cigarettes? (Eric Garner)Oh, he was a known problem (had run-ins with the cops many times before), who sold illegal (untaxed) cigarettes, then argued, fought and then resisted arrest. So he was dealing in contraband. (It was in the DNC controlled hyper-left NYC). If I was selling stolen goods on the same corner long enough, do you think the NYC cops might eventually get called and they eventually might try to arrest me? That's not about race, it's about attitude. If he had been a big white or samoan guy, doing the same thing, the same shit would have likely gone down the same way.

If those are the best 2 examples of racism that they come up with, then you know they don't have better examples. And that they don't offer the whole truth (context), let's you know what they're about. Loitering has been used against Irish (who are white), Mexicans, Asians, Whites (especially teens), homeless, and people of all races... not just because they were different in race/culture, but because of what large bands of unemployed and low class people do to area crime and property values. (It's as much classist as racist).

Other Examples

Anti-loitering laws aren't inherently racist, they are sometimes used by racist, just like all other laws. But that's not the same thign.

  • In some areas it hits minorities or immigrants harder, but in poor white areas, or areas where there's a lot of white teens gathering, it hits them harder.
  • The reasons the laws get written and enforced is usually about local communities getting frustrated with crime and/or gang activity in the areas.
  • They are more classist than racist: if there's Black Lawyers or Mexican Businessmen in suits, missionaries, environmentalist, or community activists or gathering somewhere to discuss cases/business or do some good, it's not a problem. So it's the activities happening in that area that are the problem. Not the race of who is doing it. Pretending humans and cops are too stupid to know the difference between a group of people up to good or no-good is kind of silly. People generally know, even if cops infrequently make mistakes.
  • They mention Blackmun's ruling -- but forget to mention that Blackmun was an activist judge that ignored the constitution and often invented law from the bench. (Roe v Wade). And invented excuses for inventing law. So using his rulings as proof of anything but Blackmun's bias, means you haven't been paying attention.

There are areas of cities where you have ILLEGAL immigrants pool on corners, waiting for drive by ILLEGAL work. You have other areas where gangs hang out, intimidating neighbors and committing crimes (like tagging, and harassing, or worse). More still with prostitution and drug deals. Others where teens cruise and congregate -- and teens are often looking to appease their hypothalmus (fighting, fleeing, feeding and mating). And part of mating is doing daring things to impress potential mates (usually illegal or stupid things). Those are areas that are targeted for anti-loitering. And without anti-loitering laws, they can destroy neighborhoods.

So these laws are created to stop those things, irrespective of race. (Even if they hit some races harder, in some areas). They were not written for no reason, or that the only reason was pure racism (though racists can use all laws for racism, just like other racists can imagine that all laws are racist). Thus, while it's true that minorities (especially waves of new low skilled, low educated minorities) generally have higher unemployment, and will pool in areas, and be targeted, they got written because large pools of unemployed mostly young men, bring with them crime, detritus, gangs, harassment/intimidation, etc., FIRST -- and then the laws get written or start getting enforced.

The black codes (written and passed by Democrats) were something else, and were racist. But muddling that in with the other topic, is intentionally misleading. Yes, racists will use all laws for racism -- they also abused murder/rape laws to abuse minorities, does that mean murder and rape laws are racist? Come on, think it through.

It's like they talk about anti-Gang laws that were too vague. Fine, I probably agree. But why were they passed? Because they had a gang and crime problem with assaults, murders, and other bad things first. The laws didn't pop up because of racism -- they popped up because of violent crime and a problem they couldn't get rid of, so they tried to address it by empowering the police to go after gangs. It might be wrong -- but the prime motivation wasn't race.

The arrest of latinX's (LOL, another new PC created term because it's more gender neutral? idiots) isn't because they're latino's... it's because large crowds of unemployed men dominating corners is often intimidating and lowers property values/business/etc.... and the fact that many/most of them are ILLEGAL aliens (law violators -- with a statistical history of far more crime than the social averages), means that it's backed up for reasons. Is it racist in that it hits that race harder on some corners? OK, but that's not really what racism means. If it was a bunch of blacks, whites, or native Americans, doing the same the thing, and having the same problems, it gets enforced against them too. So maybe the Democrat laws that outlawed them coming in (the immigration quotas) and keeping them second class citizens (by encouraging more illegal aliens) had racist motivations. But that doesn't prove that the loitering laws are.

It concludes that people of color are abused by these loitering laws, by ignoring that they're used more against class and activity. In fact, many of the laws were like anti-cruising laws, and were used against teens that all hung out the same places as well.

Racists see racism as the motivation for everything. And "the root" is a racist organization. And the point is you get more ignorant listening to racists.

These things are complex, and race was rarely the prime or only motivaton... and where it was, the problem was the racism -- not the loitering laws themselves. They ignore that all laws can be abused by racists and that's why Democrat controlled areas usually have the most abuses and the most complaints. But even that's a hell-of-a-lot more complex than just racism. That they didn't mention classism, crime, and why they got written in the first place, tells you that they're choosing to lie for their cause.