Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. We are not in his shoes and only he knows if he really thinks it was a racist attack or not. To judge him or to judge the police without having full knowledge of all the facts and communication is wrong.
Regardless of race there are serious questions regarding police conduct if the complaint is sustained.
The main point is this: what made the police treat this man differently than they treated all the other hostages?
As someone who knows someone who was there, he did not comply with the officers requests to get on the ground. He was told SEVERAL times to get on the ground. He yelled that he is a hostage. So just because he said he was a hostage the cops are suppposed to just throw up their arms and say "oh okay he is just a hostage". All clear guys he told us he is just a hostage". Please!!!!! The officers are thinking is this guy an accomplice, did the robber change clothes, etc... The point here is he failed to listen to the officers. Too many people feel they don't have to listen to police if they are innocent. Well, do what the officers tell you and then clear up your innocence. And just because the guy told the officers the kid didn't have a gun means NOTHING. It may mean something AFTER the situation ends, but everyone including the hostage that he took outside ALL thought he had a gun. If the lady who was escorted outside thought he didn't have a gun then why was she so fearful.
People need to seriously look at it from the cops perspective. Sorry last thought, the media's cameras don't always tell everything, what you fail to hear is the audio of the officers commands telling the guy to get on ther ground for their own safety.
I dont believe for one second that the hostage knew that the 19 year old did not have a gun. If he knew that then why did he not simply walk out of the bank and save the 19 year old's life? If he knew that the kid did not have a gun and allowed all of this to happen, then shame on him.
I believe if he was injured he has an expectation for paying the medical bills, but the comments about knowing the kid did not have gun in his complaint is what makes me question his motives.
Yes. IF. If is the most important word. There is no need for us to assume he was taken down because of his race. There is no need for us to assume he is playing the race card.
What we do need to do is let all the facts come out and then see IF any actions need to be taken. We do not need to repeat our ignorance we displayed during the Duke fiasco.
I find it very amusing that people who believe discrimination and profiling due to race doesn't exist use the Duke case as the one example to prove every other case based on racial discrimination WRONG. That is ludicrous. I do feel badly for those lacrosse players for being wrongly accused, but I'm sorry, I have to consider the entire history of racial discrimination in our society and admit that we did and still do have our problems. The one thing those kids had was money and prestige on their side. In most cases of racial discrimination or wrongful accusations and/or convictions, the defendants don't have a voice. Just take a look around The Innocence Project's website and you'll see that the vast majority of those wrongfully convicted are minorities. You can't ignore that fact.
As someone who knows someone who was there, he did not comply with the officers requests to get on the ground. He was told SEVERAL times to get on the ground. He yelled that he is a hostage. So just because he said he was a hostage the cops are suppposed to just throw up their arms and say "oh okay he is just a hostage". All clear guys he told us he is just a hostage". Please!!!!! The officers are thinking is this guy an accomplice, did the robber change clothes, etc... The point here is he failed to listen to the officers. Too many people feel they don't have to listen to police if they are innocent. Well, do what the officers tell you and then clear up your innocence. And just because the guy told the officers the kid didn't have a gun means NOTHING. It may mean something AFTER the situation ends, but everyone including the hostage that he took outside ALL thought he had a gun. If the lady who was escorted outside thought he didn't have a gun then why was she so fearful.
People need to seriously look at it from the cops perspective. Sorry last thought, the media's cameras don't always tell everything, what you fail to hear is the audio of the officers commands telling the guy to get on ther ground for their own safety.
I actually heard this guy speak on WRAL. I believe YOU are right. HE didn't stop talking...didn't do what the police told him to do and didn't help his situation.
When the police told him to lie down on the ground and stop talking, he kept right on talking (so he said on the WRAL interview). The cops had to get rougher to get him to do what he was told. It was an intense situation.
I'm so sorry he got hurt. However, he really should have done what he was told. Again, I don't believe it had anything to do with his color, but I wasn't there and I am basing that on seeing him on the interview and hearing his own words.
In an intense situation like that, you should follow the police's advice.
If he was told to stop in his tracks and put his hands up and he kept approaching the police, he could have been shot. He was lucky he wasn't.
Innocent until proven guilty is how I look at things. Racism and discrimination is alive and well in a myriad of forms. Assuming the conclusion before the process even begins is inherently wrong.
Isn't assuming the police have to be racist because the accuser is black just as bad as assuming the black accuser is only saying what he is saying because he is black? Pot meet kettle?
As someone who knows someone who was there, he did not comply with the officers requests to get on the ground. He was told SEVERAL times to get on the ground. He yelled that he is a hostage. So just because he said he was a hostage the cops are suppposed to just throw up their arms and say "oh okay he is just a hostage". All clear guys he told us he is just a hostage". Please!!!!! The officers are thinking is this guy an accomplice, did the robber change clothes, etc... The point here is he failed to listen to the officers. Too many people feel they don't have to listen to police if they are innocent. Well, do what the officers tell you and then clear up your innocence. And just because the guy told the officers the kid didn't have a gun means NOTHING. It may mean something AFTER the situation ends, but everyone including the hostage that he took outside ALL thought he had a gun. If the lady who was escorted outside thought he didn't have a gun then why was she so fearful.
People need to seriously look at it from the cops perspective. Sorry last thought, the media's cameras don't always tell everything, what you fail to hear is the audio of the officers commands telling the guy to get on ther ground for their own safety.
Were all the other hostages told to get on the ground after they left the building? There is even a picture in the News & Observer of a hostage being escorted out by a cop. Why was this treatment not given to Rev. Everett?
With all of the windows in the bank, are we actually saying that the police weren't watching the robber as much as possible? The hostages were let out at different intervals. Didn't they tell the police not only what the robber was wearing, but also what he looked like? Even if the robber changed his clothes, did he change his age and build as well?
While Rev. Everett may have noticed that the robber didn't have a gun, do you think he had the opportunity to tell the other hostages, while they are being held against their will, that the robber doesn't have a gun? I am quite sure that the lady who was escorted out was fearful mainly because she was a hostage, whether or not there was a gun, she was still being held against her will.
Yes. IF. If is the most important word. There is no need for us to assume he was taken down because of his race. There is no need for us to assume he is playing the race card.
What we do need to do is let all the facts come out and then see IF any actions need to be taken. We do not need to repeat our ignorance we displayed during the Duke fiasco.
So you agree that it is ludricous for anyone to demonize anyone. Thats what bothers me, the societal effort to create demons out of anyone we might agree with.
Why is it when a person of color raises an issue it they have to be using the "race card".
Because so many people like to play the "he's playing the race card" card....
To a simple mind, it's a simple way to justify something, and not take a difficult look at a difficult issue. To ignore the fact that people of color have some additional challenges in our society [understated] is to ignore a SERIOUS reality.
He is not an employee of Wachovia, he is an employee of Harris Teeter...and a Reverend.
My thoughts - he has every right to expect compensation for his injuries and his lost work time if he is not being compensated. He possibly has a right for a town paid therapist. I do imagine there some emotional trama of being thrown to the ground and cuffed. I doubt he has that kind of insurance thru Harris Teeter. I think its reasonable that the Town pay for that.
However the letter sent to the town attorney and posted on WRAL does not lead me to think this individual is being reasonable and instead someone has convinced him it is a golden ticket.If that is his motivation, then in my eyes he is no different than the kid who held the hostages in the bank.
I agree completely. I don't think he was treated roughly just becuase he was black. Aside from his wardrobe, he matched the description of the perpetrator.
I feel sure that if the hostage taker had been described as a white man, 6 feet tall with brown hair and tattoos on his arms, and a white man fitting that description was a hostage that was released, he'd have been treated the same way if he refused to cooperate with police.
They apologized after the fact, and they should have to compensate him for lost wages, medical, etc.
But, that's about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
