Racial Profiling at Barney's: How Big of News is this?

[LSN80]

The question I have here is not one of dismissiveness, but rather, a challenge. Considering the incident, which I will get into shortly, I'd like all of us to consider the gravity of the matter, what repercussions should be taken, and the expected fallout.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-teen-sues-barneys-police-purchase-hassle-20662059

According to ABC News(and almost any news site you will peruse, Al Sharpton's National Action Network is seeking a meeting with the CEO of Barney's New York in the wake of two separate incidents of racial profiling involving young black African Americans, both of whom were detained by police following the purchase of expensive items. The first, 19 year old Trayvon Christian of Queens, came forward Monday after an experience he encountered in April. After buying a $350 Ferragamo belt in April, he was immediately approached by two undercover police officers. According to Christian, the officers revealed to him that "an employee" in the store had raised concerns over Christian's purchase, and notified police. Christian, despite showing the receipt, ID, and the debit card with which he made said purchase, was arrested and held at the local precinct for more than two hours before being released with no charges filed. One would think that Christian's show of ID and card would be enough to appease, but the police apparently did not believe so. Christian explains why:

"I told them I had been saving my money from my part-time job, as many of my favorite rappers wear identical belts. They(the police) told me that the identification was false, and that I could not afford to make such an expensive purchase."

As for Barney's, they've unequivically denied any part in the incident, and issued the following statement:

"After carefully reviewing the incident of last April, it is clear that no employee of Barneys New York was involved in the pursuit of any action with the individual other than the sale."

Do you buy that? I sure as heck do not. Unless the police had followed Mr. Christian into the store and watched him make said purchase, how were they aware in the first place? Granted, I'm quite unfamiliar with the comings and goings of police in Queens, but I highly doubt the stop of Trayvon Christian was first initiated by them. Christian's statement itself was clear that the police informed him that a Barney's employee had alerted them, and I don't see the motive to lie. Granted, his lawsuit filed is against both Barney's and the New York police department, but it's almost borderline absurd to me that the police approached him with no prior warning. I can believe that Barney's investigation yielded no proof that any employee was involved in the pursuit. But that it's clear no employee was involved? With the lawsuit being filed in October, and the incident in April, I think it's more than reasonable to say that it would be difficult to track down proof.

Further, this is the second reported incident at Barney's this year, with 21 year old African American Kayla Phillips being 'swarmed' by police after leaving the same store. In February, Miss Phillips purchased a $2500 handbag from Celine, and was questioned for 10 minutes following police involvement. Though she said her debit card was enough to appease the police, she none-the-less plans on suing the police department as well. Does she have grounds? I suppose, if she can prove it was the result of racial profiling, but her case is nowhere near as strong as Christian's. Further, while her incident occured months earlier than Christian's she only came forward yesterday when word of Christian's lawsuit had gotten out. Am I doubting her story? Absolutely not. Just the timing of it.

Meanwhile, following the announcement of the separate lawsuits, Barney's has issued the following statement:

"Barneys New York has zero tolerance for any form of discrimination and we stand by our long history in support of all human rights."

I question this as well. If they truly have zero tolerance, as they claim, how did these two incidents happen? Does it truly fall on the broad shoulders of the police?

Finally, I abhor the idea of Al Sharpton's group becoming involved in this. Unless it was specifically requested by one of the soon to be plaintiffs, I don't see their dog in this fight. Further, it's hardly a stretch for me to see their group overshadowing the plaintiffs, whom the true focus should be on. Further, the idea of their chapter demanding a meeting with the CEO of Barney's seems a little much. It would be one thing, I believe, if attention was needed to be brought to this case. Sharpton's group would be ideal for that. However, this story already has plenty of attention, so why shift it elsewhere, to a group that's just as self-serving as they are beneficial? Do these lawsuits even warrant their intervention? I don't feel they do.

Are you buying Barneys claim that they had "no involvement'' in the pursuit of either young person?

Do the lawsuits against the police have merit?

Does Al Sharpton's group belong anywhere near this?

 

[Mustang Sally]

Further, this is the second reported incident at Barney's this year, with 21 year old African American Kayla Phillips being 'swarmed' by police after leaving the same store.

A decade ago, my brother was working a Summer construction job (also in Queens) and in his work clothes, he walked out of a store with a $2000 computer he purchased. He too, was "swarmed" by police. He never knew whether a store employee called them or how else the police might have become involved. After a big hassle, they let him go, since the purchase was legitimate. By the way, the last time I saw my brother, he was white. Therefore, I say we don't know that Barney's stopped the other two folks because they were black because we don't know what other factors might have been involved, any more than my brother did.

Is it possible they were stopped strictly because of race? Sure......and don't many white people just love crying "racist!" at other whites, because they want it to indicate that the accuser is a fair-minded individual? The practice is as old as the Civil Rights movement itself. But we have to choose our words very carefully when discussing this type of thing, don't we?

Finally, I abhor the idea of Al Sharpton's group becoming involved in this.

He's the biggest threat to racial unity I've ever come across. He fans the flames of racial hatred more (and probably more effectively) than anyone. When he ran for President in 2004 and was accused of campaign fund malfeasance, he immediately proclaimed that the only reason he was being accused was because he was African-American. Then, he sat back and watched the terrified white people argue the charge. Of course, the issue being discussed was no longer campaign finances; instead, it was about who was (and wasn't) a racist.....and as I said before, if there's one thing that scares the hell out of white people, it's being called a racist.

**Although Sharpton probably enjoyed what he put in motion, the system eventually got around to fining him for his misdeeds with campaign finances. After all, using campaign funds to book himself in the Presidential suite of each hotel on the road and finding room service bills with multiple bottles of Cristal champagne and caviar charged to his room didn't exactly lend themselves to his argument that he led a spartan existence while on the ol' campaign trail.

*******

Every single negative thing that happens between black people and white doesn't revolve around race. Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. When a black person "does" something to a white person, we rarely hear race mentioned as a factor, but one thing's for sure: if someone screams "racism" every time something bad happens between blacks and whites, we'll never get anywhere with race relations, which is something Al Sharpton learned to his advantage a long time ago.

 

[HBsam31]

Are you buying Barneys claim that they had "no involvement'' in the pursuit of either young person?

No I don't buy it. I have come across employees in these types of places and they are really snooty. I don't get it either. They are workers at the store not necessarily the people buying the product. I am white, and I have been looked down upon in two separate cases in different stores. Once I was buying my wife an anniversary present in a jewelry store, and I asked the clerk how much an item cost. I don't know a thing about jewelry or what it is supposed to cost to be honest so I asked. She said oh honey with almost a snicker, that costs five thousand dollars. How the hell did she know how much I wanted to spend? I of course left and bought my wife a present in the competing store down the way. The second time was at sakks 5th ave in downtown Pittsburgh. I was the chef at an event held there and I was talking to one of the salesman about these Italian shoes I saw. They were 700 dollars shoes, and again I did not major in Italian shoes in college so my knowledge of them is limited, and he looked at me and straight up told me I had horrible taste and if I wanted shoes I needed to buy the 1400 dollar pair. I just laughed and left as I had no intention of buying any shoes, but still. I didn't get swarmed by cops or anything, but my point is people in these stores tend to be pretty uppity so no I don't believe a word of them not having any knowledge of it.

Do the lawsuits against the police have merit?

I think so. These people bought a product and were harassed. I don't know what they could sue for, but it seems like at the very least the cops should be reprimanded. I don't get why the receipt and debit card was not enough to shut these cops up. It sounds to me like these cops had a hard on for these people, because it is pretty easy to prove you bought something especially if plastic is used.

Does Al Sharpton's group belong anywhere near this?

I don't know enough about the group nor has anything I ever heard about the group been positive so I am going to no comment this one.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Are you buying Barneys claim that they had "no involvement'' in the pursuit of either young person? - No, I don't buy into the claim at all. Barneys is a store that's very well known for having merchandise that's outrageously overpriced and for having an elitist attitude. I have a cousin who visited New York to take part in the New Year's Eve celebration and said the employees were snobbish and downright rude. A company like Barneys is extremely image conscious and I believe they'll say whatever is necessary to avoid looking bad. If that means telling outright lies, then that's what they'll do. I just find it difficult to believe that police officers in New York, which is one of the most culturally and racially diverse areas in the United States, took it upon themselves to stop this young man & woman just because of the skin of their color. Given their experience with such a racial diversity, I simply don't see them being foolish enough to engage in blatant racial profiling. It'd bring down all kinds of hell on them both personally and professionally.

Do the lawsuits against the police have merit? - Given the fact that they produced receipts and debit cards, and showed IDs confirming who they are, the cops should have backed off. However, if there were any doubts in the minds of the police officers, such as the debit cards being stolen or a fake ID, I believe the first should have all gone back into the store, spoken with the salesperson and get this whole thing sorted out. If the police claim that an employee from Barneys called them, it'll be in the phone records if someone did, and they could speak with this person and find out what's what. If Barneys maintained that nobody from the store made the call, then the police would have to trust their own judgment. The evidence provided by these two people as to confirm their identities and the legitimacy of their purchase, so they should've backed off. It wouldn't have been any problem to get to the bottom of all this without taking anyone into custody.

Does Al Sharpton's group belong anywhere near this? - If there's anyone as divisive when it comes to racial & minority relations as Pat Robertson, it's Al Sharpton. Sharpton is a shameless, self-aggrandizing huckster that will resort to anything and say anything to enforce his own views. Often times, those views come from escalating racial tensions. I don't necessarily believe that Al Sharpton is a voice for equality for blacks in America as he's a voice for black superiority. If you're African American and you feel that you've been wrong somehow based on race, especially if this wrong is significant enough to gain national media coverage, then Sharpton will automatically take your side if you're being truthful or not. The Tawana Brawley case in the late 1980s is a perfect example of it. Even if it's revealed these two situations had nothing to do with race, Sharpton will do everything possible to make it about race.

 

[H33LTurn]

Until all the facts present themselves it can't be said for certain whether or not Barney's had any involvement in either incident. If information does surface, however, that someone from Barney's did contact the authorities in reaction to the race of their customers I wouldn't be surprised. These expensive NYC stores are not very compassionate when they see someone who they've decided doesn't fit the mold of their average shopper. When it comes to a lawsuit against the police, the amount of information the officers knew is key in determining how culpable they are in this incident. If the police legitimately thought someone robbed Barney's and was unaware that racial profiling was taking place by the staff then theres not much that can be done. Sharpton has always been one to fan the flames, and after the Trayvon Martin hysteria and the false charges lobbied against Zimmerman (FBI determined race didn't play a factor) we can do without the special interest groups while all the intel is gathered. If it does turn out that Barney's or law enforcement were practicing racial profiling then I say have at it.