Reality of racism still exists in the USA

[Boobalaa]

Oh yeah, as long as this kind of stuff is allowed to proliferate due to lackadaisical enforcement, it will.

 

[slurper_la]

Lowe's Delivery Man Called Back When Customer Asks For White Worker
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/11/lowes-delivery-man-racist-customer_n_7971604.html

 

[ActionBuddy]

Lowe's Delivery Man Called Back When Customer Asks For White Worker.

Holy shit!... In this day and age?... Please don't bash me for wondering this, though: Could it be possible that the driver's manager might have been looking out for his safety by not wanting him to set foot on that racist's property?... I know it was the wrong choice "ethically speaking", but I wonder if that was even considered by upper management before canning the manager?

Off topic a bit, I suppose, but this reminded of the time, just a few years ago, that my sister, (a strong feminist), and I were taking a flight to San Francisco from Seattle. Before take-off, when the pilot, a woman, greeted the passengers over the intercom to welcome them and wish them a good flight, a man on board became completely hysterical, screaming at the crew about how women aren't capable to fly a plane, and to let him out, RIGHT NOW!... After much jeering by the rest of the passengers, (I had to keep my sister from getting up to beat his ass), the crew decided it was best to get rid of the idiot. Our flight was delayed by half an hour, but at least he was no longer on board. When we landed at SFO, the pilot came out of the cockpit, and got a standing ovation from the passengers...

A/B

 

[StormfrontFL]

Holy shit!... In this day and age?... Please don't bash me for wondering this, though: Could it be possible that the driver's manager might have been looking out for his safety by not wanting him to set foot on that racist's property?... I know it was the wrong choice "ethically speaking", but I wonder if that was even considered by upper management before canning the manager?

Off topic a bit, I suppose, but this reminded of the time, just a few years ago, that my sister, (a strong feminist), and I were taking a flight to San Francisco from Seattle. Before take-off, when the pilot, a woman, greeted the passengers over the intercom to welcome them and wish them a good flight, a man on board became completely hysterical, screaming at the crew about how women aren't capable to fly a plane, and to let him out, RIGHT NOW!... After much jeering by the rest of the passengers, (I had to keep my sister from getting up to beat his ass), the crew decided it was best to get rid of the idiot. Our flight was delayed by half an hour, but at least he was no longer on board. When we landed at SFO, the pilot came out of the cockpit, and got a standing ovation from the passengers...

A/B

From what I heard the former manager didn't give the driver's safety as a reason. He was clear in that he was honoring the customer's request. He clearly did not stick up for his employee.

 

[ActionBuddy]

OK... Just was wondering if that came into play with this gross situation. If I were in charge there, I would have told the customer to fuck off and told her or him to use a different delivery service... The customer is NOT always right!

A/B

 

[StormfrontFL]

OK... Just was wondering if that came into play with this gross situation. If I were in charge there, I would have told the customer to fuck off and told her or him to use a different delivery service... The customer is NOT always right!

A/B

Too many businesses have the rule that the customer is always right. This causes more trouble because the customer feels entitled to act as if they are above everyone else even when they're wrong

 

[ActionBuddy]

That racist customer was obviously wrong, and anti-American!

 

[StormfrontFL]

That racist customer was obviously wrong, and anti-American!

Well she expected her demand to be honored which leads me to believe that other businesses may have.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Or, hopefully, may have NOT.

 

[rbkwp]

was there ever any thought it had been resolved!

think gun control, as well'

 

[StormfrontFL]

I wonder where all his apologists and supporters are now? Any question as to what motivated him? Shall we discuss his friend, supporter, and spokesman Frank Taafe?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/zim...r-the-last-moron-that-hit-me/comments/#disqus

 

[b.c.]

FACT is Zimmerman's history of violence predated his murder of Trayvon. We ALL know what motivated this *******.

And in spite of all the b.s. and posturing, his supporters did as WELL, because it's the same kind of s***** that motivates THEM.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Notice which flag he reps?

 

[keenobserver]

I'm curious. Why do you contend that Martin was "murdered"? The case went to trial and the jury acquitted him. What do you know that the rest of us don't?

The jury really had no choice given the broad parameters of the "stand your ground law," that the NRA has installed in quite a few states, and is pushing nationwide. Zimmerman had no reason to approach the young man. He called police to report his suspicions - ok, fine, they told him not to engage with Trayvon, they were on the way. Zimmerman, a wannabe cop was trying to make himself the hero, if for not other reason than to show police agencies that refused to hire him that they were wrong. He was a solution looking for a problem. In my opinion Zimmerman was trying to make a racial profile fit the circumstances he saw. Really, it is a tragic case that did not need to happen, and Zimmerman would have been convicted absent the stand your ground law.

 

[keenobserver]

The "Stand Your Ground" defense was not used.

I saw no evidence or testimony that would compel me to convict the guy of murder and, apparently, neither did the jury. What did they and I miss?

I've said all I have to say on that particular case. If you disagree, that is fine.

 

[malakos]

Of course racism still exists in the USA. It still exists everywhere. Racial prejudice is a natural and practically unavoidable part of the human experience that develops in all races. And the idea of some future where it will be eradicated is horribly naive.

 

[temptotalk]

Of course racism still exists in the USA. It still exists everywhere. Racial prejudice is a natural and practically unavoidable part of the human experience that develops in all races. And the idea of some future where it will be eradicated is horribly naive.

Would that possibly be the same as condoning it? Let me rephrase. If you think it's perfectly natural, does that also mean you approve?

 

[Boobalaa]

Would that possibly be the same as condoning it? Let me rephrase. If you think it's perfectly natural, does that also mean you approve?

Methinks were getting close to "God's Authority" issues and religious "Natural Law"

 

[StormfrontFL]

The "Stand Your Ground" defense was not used.

I saw no evidence or testimony that would compel me to convict the guy of murder and, apparently, neither did the jury. What did they and I miss?

Why am I not surprised that you missed the part where the jury instructions specifically mentioned stand your ground? There was no need to use it as a defense if it was going to be a part of the deliberation. This isn't just coming from me but from jurors on the case.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Other than your solitary post above, I have no idea of your views on the case. Your assertion, however, that his defense team used the "Stand Your Ground" law as a defense is incorrect. His defense was simple. The testimony and evidence indicated that Zimmerman shot Martin after being attacked. So, what piece of evidence did the prosecution not present that would have convicted Zimmerman?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ur-ground-relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/
In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations. Earlier reports suggested the notorious law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense was not applied to the case, because Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to request a Stand Your Ground hearing. But as ThinkProgress explained in a post earlier today, the jury instructions contained the law’s key provision and instructed jurors that self-defense meant Zimmerman was entitled to “stand his ground” with “no duty to retreat.”

The juror’s interview with Anderson Cooper Monday night confirms that the jury not only considered this language in their deliberations, but that their decision hinged in part on the Stand Your Ground Law: