• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buying a TV while Black

Robin said:
I don't know who suggested this, but the police report says that the officer was responding to a larceny in process and at the end said that they would be proceeding with stealing charges.

It is difficult to see from the video how this could have been interpreted as larceny or stealing.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any video of anything at the return counter. Only the plaintiff arguing with a store employee, no counter and no TV in sight.

"Larceny in progress" at the return counter? That sounds like a fraudulent return, like I mentioned above.

Or maybe he was never at the return counter? How is this for a fraud: He takes the one set home, gets to thinking.... he did leave a TV that he had paid for, they let him come back later and load a TV into his car. Hmmm, try it again?

Scammers can be tricky, I don't care what color their skin is.

We see the footage from the one camera. It shows the escalation and take down. I didn't see any kicking. Where can we see the footage from the other camera that shows the start of the arguement?
 
casebro said:
The "carry it out to the car" was a separate incident. And I will bet Dollars to dog Turds that there is more to the story.
Click to expand...

They challenged the man when he came back for the TV because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. When he got home and told his mother she got pissed and they went to return the TV and take their business elsewhere.

That's when they were accused of trying to return a stolen TV. And that sucks by itself. So the cops come with the report of the stolen TV.

And this is what pisses me off the most. Instead of coming to assess the situation, they simply act on the phone call as if it were fact. They should have asked more questions instead of accusing the man of trying to return a stolen TV.

The mother was already angry and she was yelling and out of control.

But I stand by what I said, cops are responsible to deescalate situations. The man was not returning a stolen TV. That should have been resolved first.
 
Stout said:
No, I want to see how far this goes before somebody snaps and actually operates a search engine.
Click to expand...
Surprise! I actually have (hours ago when you first started refusing to elaborate on your claim) and, at least in the first two pages, the only significant site I found was the Daily News. So, again, please provide links to your better sources.
 
Babbylonian said:
Surprise! I actually have (hours ago when you first started refusing to elaborate on your claim) and, at least in the first two pages, the only significant site I found was the Daily News. So, again, please provide links to your better sources.
Click to expand...

Your search engine sucks.
 
casebro said:
I haven't seen any video of anything at the return counter. Only the plaintiff arguing with a store employee, no counter and no TV in sight.

"Larceny in progress" at the return counter? That sounds like a fraudulent return, like I mentioned above.

Or maybe he was never at the return counter? How is this for a fraud: He takes the one set home, gets to thinking.... he did leave a TV that he had paid for, they let him come back later and load a TV into his car. Hmmm, try it again?
Click to expand...
Or, maybe no "larceny" was ever reported. Maybe that store employee who came back with the cop simply asked him to help intervene with a customer who was becoming argumentative.

Maybe when the police started hearing the social media reports they thought to themelves "Hmmm... maybe we had better pretend that we were responding to a reported larceny".

Cops can be tricky too, you know

And, of course we know that there was no larceny involved because the police returned the TV to the Gray's the following day.
 
Last edited:
paiute said:
Lot of white people in this thread going [Dave Chappelle white person voice] Oh, dear, there is something not right. There must be more to the story.

Yeah. There isn't. Dollars to dog turds that if the TV purchaser was white, the cops help him carry it out to his car.
Click to expand...



The story has already changed from the tv not fitting in the car to TV and son arriving home with TV, mom sending son with tv from home back to the store.
 
Robin said:
So why don't you post the link now?

Or at least tell us how many stupid excuses you are going to give us first.
Click to expand...

Links...we're talking multiple links.

If you're unable to find any of them then you might need to consider that your government is censoring your access to information. To keep you safe, of course.
 
Like I said in what you quoted? Did I miss something? First the altercation was said to have happened when they went back to get the TV after it didn’t fit in the car. Now it is said to have happened when they were returning it after having made it home with the TV. At least that’s how I read the OP and then the later article. I could be wrong; I often am. Either way the opening post and that article were a mess.
 
shemp said:
Perhaps your alleged links are all in your mind? You might need to consider professional help.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Yell me, do you believe the statement issued by the Des Peres Department of Public Safety ? That may, or may not, exist ?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Like I said in what you quoted? Did I miss something? First the altercation was said to have happened when they went back to get the TV after it didn’t fit in the car. Now it is said to have happened when they were returning it after having made it home with the TV. At least that’s how I read the OP and then the later article. I could be wrong; I often am. Either way the opening post and that article were a mess.
Click to expand...
Again, I am not sure what you are saying has changed.


Here is the story as I understand it.

He buys the TV. He finds it doesn't fit in his SUV, takes it back and asked them to hold it and then came back. When he comes back to retrieve it an employee suspects him of stealing it but another employee confirms that he owns the television. when putting it back in his car a police officer suspects him of stealing and again an employee sets him straight.

When the son gets home, he and his mother decide to return to the store to return the TV which is where the arrest and the events on camera happen.

That is the story as I first heard it and it is, as far as I know, the story still.

Now what part of that has changed?
 
I think that there is over reaction on both sides.

Having watched the store video a few times here's seems to have happened.

- Derek and Marvia are talking with a store employee when the first cop arrives. Derek does look agitated.

- The first cop and Derek appear to exchange words and the cop immediately tries to grab Derek's arm.

- Derek pulls his arm back and places both arms behind his back, the second cop arrives.

- Derek starts stepping back away from the first cop and Marvia tries to step between the first cop and her son as the cop continues to try and grab Derek.

- The Second cop arrives as the first gets around Marvia and as Derek is facing the second cop, the first cop grabs Derek's arm.

- The second cop grabs Derek's other arm, Marvia walks away, the second cop lets go of Derek and goes after her.

- The second cop tries to grab Marvia, who fends him off, Derek tries to break the hold the first cop has on his arm.

- The second cop gets hold of Marvia and pushes her across the store and into the wall. Meanwhile Derek breaks the first cop's grip, loses his balance and staggers backwards out of frame, the first cop following him.

- The second cop has Marvia under control at this point. The first appears to grab Derek again, Derek breaks the grab again and comes back into frame, turns and walks towards his mother.

- The first cop here charges Derek, hitting him from behind and slams him into the wall. Derek does get his arms up to protect himself going face first into it.

- The first cop then yanks Derek backwards, Derek grabs at the fire extinguisher that he was slammed into to try and prevent this, but it comes loose and both he and the fire are thrown backwards onto the floor.

- The first Cop drops on top of Derek as he does that.

- Marvia breaks away from the second Cop to run over to Derek. The second cop grabs her and throws her to the floor cuffing her. The first cop cuffs Derek

From there the other cops arrive over time, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of action happening, the other two cops were certainly not involved in the incident.

So....

The cops should never have been called in the first place.

Cop 1 over reacted several times, escalating things

The cops claim that Derek grabbed the fire extinguisher as a weapon is totally false.

Both Marvia and Derek acted for the most part as people that didn't think that the cops had a right to lay hands on them would.

Other than the tackle on Derek slamming him into the wall and then the floor, the situation seems to have been non-excessive. I do think that there is a case for that tackle and slam being to the line of excessive, it was certainly unnecessary.

I think it's possible the city might settle, but otherwise, I don't think they'll get the verdict they want.

I would never go back to the shop in question.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I figured it was something like that. Just trying to wrap my head around the idea of "we wanted the TV, we have the TV, Sam's Club had our back; let's ditch the TV and yell at Sam's Club". Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Click to expand...
When he came back with the receipt to pick it up, it had been moved from where they left it and they wouldn't give it to him on suspicion that he was trying to steal it. They say that "eventually, that same day" they gave him the television after a store employer intervened with the management.

Doesn't sound much like having his back to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom