Buying a TV while Black

[shemp]

4 white Missouri cops sued for alleged brutality on 68-year-old black woman and son in a Sam’s Club

Four white police officers allegedly used excessive force on a 68-year-old black woman and her adult son after the son was wrongly accused of stealing a TV in a Missouri Sam’s Club, a new lawsuit claims.

Marvia Gray suffered “mental anguish” as well as injuries to her tailbone, back, shoulder, knees and arms when she was thrown to the ground and handcuffed March 23 inside the Des Peres store, the lawsuit filed Monday in St. Louis County alleges.

Her 43-year-old son, Derek, suffered a concussion, three shattered teeth and other injuries, the paperwork obtained by the Daily News states.

At the Sam’s Club, Derek purchased a 65-inch Sony Bravia flat-screen TV for his mother, along with other items, Stroth said.

When they tried to load the massive TV in their 2018 Lexus SUV and realized it wouldn’t fit, they asked the store to hold it until Derek could retrieve it later.

A Des Peres Police officer in the store mistakenly thought he was stealing the TV when he returned later. The officer followed Derek to his SUV and voiced his suspicion before a store employee intervened and explained the TV was paid for, the lawsuit said.

Despite receiving this information, the officer still called the Des Peres Police Department and “falsely reported that he had ‘witnessed Gray steal a TV and place it in the parked vehicle,’” the lawsuit states.

When Derek reported the incident to his mom, they decided to return the TV due to the experience with the false allegations, the lawsuit states.

While the Grays were at the store seeking a refund, the four officers, including the one who made the emergency call, “violently and physically seized Marvia Gray and Derek Gray, throwing them to the floor, beating them, handcuffing them, then arresting them," the paperwork states.

 

[theprestige]

None of that makes any sense. I did like the product placement for Sony and Lexus, though.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Arrested for resisting arrest with no other actual crime alleged. The tell-tale sign of honest police work.

What crime could they have been investigating? The cops had already falsely accused the man of theft and been corrected by the store employees. Yet they become involved when the same man is back with the same TV attempting to get a refund in protest of their poor treatment.

Sounds like their real crime was "contempt of cop".

Side note, I've never seen cops on detail at a Costco. Sam's Club sounds like an awful place.

 

[pgwenthold]

Let me guess: the store employee who intervened was black?

Because why else would they not concede at that point?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'd like to see this as racism, but apparently that's not allowed and we have to examine Marvia Grey's history until we find out that she ran a stop sign in 1978 and is therefore a clear and present danger to society.

Dave

 

[Porkpie Hat]

None of that makes any sense. I did like the product placement for Sony and Lexus, though.

How does it not make sense?

My ex and I bought a 60" (brand irrelevant) from Visions Electronics in Okotoks Alberta and when we couldn't get it to fit in her little SUV, we went and got my truck....the similarities end there since I'm a) white and b) not in America.

If you meant it makes no sense to be beaten for the reason of being human and doing human things while black, I agree.

 

[theprestige]

How does it not make sense?

A police officer patrolling a supermarket parking lot in Missouri and accusing a black man of stealing the TV he's putting into his car makes some sense, but that just might be my bias talking.

Returning the TV to the store, out of protest over the cop, when the store took your side, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You've got the TV, why not keep it? "Every time I turn on that TV, I'll remember how badly you were treated in the Sam's Club parking lot. I can't enjoy it now. Better return it." I guess?

Four cops hanging out at the Sam's Club returns counter, waiting to throw a beating at the first black man to show up returning a TV, makes no sense at all. I assume the grievance claimed in the lawsuit is legitimate, but there seems to be a YUGE chunk of context missing from the story.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, as I read the story on my Apple® MacBook Pro™ 15", while sipping the Folger's® Classic Roast™ coffee I brewed in my Mr. Coffee® Optimal Brew™ 10-Cup Programmable Coffee Maker with Thermal Carafe from my Kleen Kanteen® HydroFlask™, over my Xfinity® Performance Starter+™ high-speed Internet connection.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I'd like to see this as racism

'nuff said.

 

[theprestige]

I'd like to see this as racism, but apparently that's not allowed and we have to examine Marvia Grey's history until we find out that she ran a stop sign in 1978 and is therefore a clear and present danger to society.

Why would you like to see it as racism? Why wouldn't you want to at least get some context to what happened?

Why would you have any preference at all, as to explanation, other than that it be an accurate explanation?

I'd like to see this as a horrible misunderstanding, with everyone trying to do the right thing, and somehow ******* it all up horribly. But that doesn't seem very likely.

Of course really I'd like to not see this at all, but that ship has sailed. Something happened, and whether I like it or not some people were probably being complete douchebags here. Hopefully not everybody, but no matter what I don't see a likeable viewpoint at all.

The cops were being racist? I wouldn't like to see that.

The customers were being jerks somehow? I wouldn't like to see that, either.

It's all the store's fault? I wouldn't like to see that, either.

Why is wanting to see this as racism your first reaction to the story?

 

[Brainster]

It may simply be a case of stupid and racist cops, but I agree with TP on this one; there's something odd about the story here:

A Des Peres Police officer in the store mistakenly thought he was stealing the TV when he returned later. The officer followed Derek to his SUV and voiced his suspicion before a store employee intervened and explained the TV was paid for, the lawsuit said.

Despite receiving this information, the officer still called the Des Peres Police Department and “falsely reported that he had ‘witnessed Gray steal a TV and place it in the parked vehicle,’” the lawsuit states.

When Derek reported the incident to his mom, they decided to return the TV due to the experience with the false allegations, the lawsuit states.

The second paragraph makes no sense at all. If the cop still believed that Gray had stolen the TV, would he let him leave? No, so maybe at some point the officer made the mistaken (not false) report, but eventually he decided that Gray had not stolen the TV or he would not have released him.

And why would they return the TV due to the experience with the false allegations? The store has apparently done nothing wrong--an employee even helped out by intervening with the cop.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A police officer patrolling a supermarket parking lot in Missouri and accusing a black man of stealing the TV he's putting into his car makes some sense, but that just might be my bias talking.

Returning the TV to the store, out of protest over the cop, when the store took your side, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You've got the TV, why not keep it? "Every time I turn on that TV, I'll remember how badly you were treated in the Sam's Club parking lot. I can't enjoy it now. Better return it." I guess?

Four cops hanging out at the Sam's Club returns counter, waiting to throw a beating at the first black man to show up returning a TV, makes no sense at all. I assume the grievance claimed in the lawsuit is legitimate, but there seems to be a YUGE chunk of context missing from the story.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, as I read the story on my Apple® MacBook Pro™ 15", while sipping the Folger's® Classic Roast™ coffee I brewed in my Mr. Coffee® Optimal Brew™ 10-Cup Programmable Coffee Maker with Thermal Carafe from my Kleen Kanteen® HydroFlask™, over my Xfinity® Performance Starter+™ high-speed Internet connection.

It's common practice for stores to pay police officers to work as security.

if the store was paying these cops to work as security for the store, it seems fair to hold the store partially culpable for the bad behavior of the police. Returning an item because the store invites cops to hassle their customers seems like a reasonable way to complain.

Even if the police are not directly being paid by the store, if they are hanging out there, they do so tacit permission.

 

[theprestige]

It's common practice for stores to pay police officers to work as security.

if the store was paying these cops to work as security for the store, it seems fair to hold the store partially culpable for the bad behavior of the police. Returning an item because the store invites cops to hassle their customers seems like a reasonable way to complain.

Even if the police are not directly being paid by the store, if they are hanging out there, they do so tacit permission.

Still doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Still doesn't make a lot of sense.

Why is this store letting these dumb cops loiter around if they are causing problems with the paying customers?

Dude bought a gigantic TV. Probably spent some real money only to get heckled by some meathead cop. I'd return the TV and never go back to a store that allows this to happen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why would you like to see it as racism?

Because clearly the first seven words of my post were intended to be taken in a completely different sense to the remainder of it.

Dave

 

[theprestige]

Why is this store letting these dumb cops loiter around if they are causing problems with the paying customers?

Exactly. It doesn't make sense that the store would do this. We're clearly missing an important part of the story. Specifically, the part that makes sense of what's been reported.

Dude bought a gigantic TV. Probably spent some real money only to get heckled by some meathead cop. I'd return the TV and never go back to a store that allows this to happen.

Assuming the store allowed it to happen. Which doesn't make sense (and isn't quite what was reported anyway).

You're taking the story at face value and assuming it's complete. I'm saying that at face value, the story is incomplete and doesn't make sense.

I respect that you're trying to make sense of it, but I think that there's too much missing from the story for your efforts to have any hope of success.

 

[theprestige]

Because clearly the first seven words of my post were intended to be taken in a completely different sense to the remainder of it.

What is the sense in which we should take your post, then?

You believe it's racism, based on the information provided, but people are going to challenge you to support that belief and you resent the prospect?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is the sense in which we should take your post, then?

Satire of the arguments and strawman positions typically proffered by racists when it's suggested that an incident might be racially motivated; firstly claim that the wimpy liberals want it to be racism, secondly attack the victim. Sorry if the sarcasm wasn't clear enough.

Dave

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Exactly. It doesn't make sense that the store would do this. We're clearly missing an important part of the story. Specifically, the part that makes sense of what's been reported.


Assuming the store allowed it to happen. Which doesn't make sense (and isn't quite what was reported anyway).

You're taking the story at face value and assuming it's complete. I'm saying that at face value, the story is incomplete and doesn't make sense.

I respect that you're trying to make sense of it, but I think that there's too much missing from the story for your efforts to have any hope of success.

Might be a while. The injured family has sued, the cops have clammed up and denied everything.

Like I said earlier, the hallmark of a BS arrest and cops covering their ass is the arrest charge for "resisting" with no underlying crime to justify the arrest. That alone is enough to imply that the cops aren't being totally earnest here.

 

[theprestige]

Satire of the arguments and strawman positions typically proffered by racists when it's suggested that an incident might be racially motivated; firstly claim that the wimpy liberals want it to be racism, secondly attack the victim. Sorry if the sarcasm wasn't clear enough.

The hate is coming through loud and clear, at least.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It may simply be a case of stupid and racist cops, but I agree with TP on this one; there's something odd about the story here:



The second paragraph makes no sense at all. If the cop still believed that Gray had stolen the TV, would he let him leave? No, so maybe at some point the officer made the mistaken (not false) report, but eventually he decided that Gray had not stolen the TV or he would not have released him.

And why would they return the TV due to the experience with the false allegations? The store has apparently done nothing wrong--an employee even helped out by intervening with the cop.

Why would police arrest a guy hundreds of times for tresspassing while at work? That makes no sense clearly there must be some mysterious totally non racist explanation for everything in this case too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/This-american-life-cops-see-it-differently/385874/