BART Withholds Video Of Attacks Over Concern About "Stereotypes"

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Ed Morrissey

Over the last few months, several attacks by large groups have targeted riders on San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains, resulting in robberies and injuries. The first of these took place in April and involved as many as sixty youth and seven victims, two of whom were beaten. The two most recent came at the end of June, including an armed robbery with a knife and another incident with a dozen perpetrators robbing a woman.

BART riders have begun to fear for their safety, and want video released to see who are committing these robberies. BART won’t release the video, however, and BART board member Deborah Allen tells CBS that it’s because they are afraid that the videos will “unfairly affect and characterize riders of color”:

According to a memo distributed to BART Directors, the agency won’t do a press release on the June 30 theft because it was a “petty crime” that would make BART look “crime ridden.” Furthermore, it would “unfairly affect and characterize riders of color, leading to sweeping generalizations in media reports.”

 

The memo was from BART Assistant General Manager Kerry Hamill.

 

Allen emailed Hamill, “I don’t understand what role the color of one’s skin plays in this issue [of whether to divulge information]. Can you explain?” Hamill responded, “If we were to regularly feed the news media video of crimes on our system that involve minority suspects, particularly when they are minors, we would certainly face questions as to why we were sensationalizing relatively minor crimes and perpetuating false stereotypes in the process.” And added her opinion of the media: “My view is that the media’s real interest in the videos of youth phone snatching incidents isn’t the desire for transparency but rather the pursuit of ratings. They know that video of these events will drive clicks to their websites and viewers to their programs because people are motivated by fear.”

The CBS affiliate published the two e-mails in their entirety at the link. The explanation here is nonsensical in more ways than can be addressed in a single post, but a couple of points stand out.

First, the responsibility for transparency lies with BART, not local TV stations. To say that TV stations want ratings is as silly as saying politicians want votes. So what? That has nothing to do with BART’s responsibility to its riders, especially when it comes to their security.

And second, since when is armed robbery a “petty crime”? Under California penal code 211, robbery consists of “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” In all of these cases, force and fear were employed to rob victims of their property, and at least one case involved a deadly weapon. That includes the June 30th incident, in which a dozen suspects robbed a woman of her phone. In California, all robberies are felonies, not “petty crimes.”

Hamill answered Allen’s e-mail query by questioning the value of public release of surveillance video, especially in light of the response it received after the Oscar Grant killing:

People can be fully informed about crimes that occur on our system without being shown images that will inflame some members of the public and paint the transit agency in a poor and ultimately misleading light.

That’s actually a better argument. Do video releases to the public actually help solve crimes? Sometimes, but perhaps they may also be prejudicial in the legal sense, which is one concern that BART raises. However, Hamill undermines this argument by claiming that these gang robberies are “petty” in nature. No they are not; in fact, they are very dangerous, especially when left unchecked and the gangs feel they can act with impunity. That smacks of a public official trying very hard to minimize a real problem to cover her department’s rear end, which is about as opposite of “transparency” as one can get. Hamill emphasizes more than once in this exchange her concern about creating a perception that BART is “crime-ridden,” and so would prefer not to inform riders of the nature of actual crimes to prevent it.

Our RedState colleague Kira Davis is furious about BART’s implied message:

Just to recap – innocent, paying BART riders are being beaten and robbed but authorities don’t want to properly inform the public so they can be alert because that might make more racism. Allen says it would “create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains”.

 

Not the actual criminals. They’re not the ones creating a “racial bias” by beating and robbing people. No. It’s you dirty racists who would like to be informed of crime risks on the transportation you pay for dearly in one of the most expensive cities in the nation.

Just to be fair, Allen’s the one relaying the message, not agreeing with it. And she’s not the only one raising questions about the policy. KPIX followed up on the story and notes the pushback that’s begun among elected officials in the Bay area:

The problem with all of the legalese offered by BART in this instance is the admission that they admittedly base that policy in part on the ethnicity of the perpetrators. “So if it were a video showing white teenagers robbing someone,” the KPIX anchor asked Allen, “we would have the video by now?” Allen responded, “That might be a good question.” The better policy would be full transparency, and let San Francisco residents make up their own minds. If the progressives in the Bay area can’t be trusted to act without bigotry, perhaps the risk of that has been misplaced all along.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
American Psycho's picture

I'm curious if people are just delusional or if they are just playing the 'social justice' part?  What are they saying behind close doors?

StackShinyStuff's picture

N  _  G  G  _  R  S  

 

Would you like to buy a vowel or solve the puzzle?

froze25's picture

Clue: "people who annoy you"

Looney's picture

 

sixty youth and seven victims, two of whom were beaten

Nancy Pelosi should start riding BART.  ;-)

Looney

NoDebt's picture

Oh, to be back in the carefree days of slavery.

(My most racist friend's favorite expression)

IndyPat's picture

Dude, I'd settle for segregation at this point. Both races do it, for the most part, voluntarily.

It's a good secondary use of train tracks.

mtl4's picture

Commiefornia, we are so PC the perpetrators are the victims!

Don't ever try being a landlord in Berkeley or SF, one lawsuit and the tennants own your property using lawyers paid by your own taxes.

JLee2027's picture

This is not racism.

If freeloaders knock on your front door demanding food and money, what is your obligation to them? Answer: As a Christian you can give me food and a bit of money, maybe one night of rest, but then they need to move on. You have met any obligation.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

And if they are waiting for you to return home?

AltRightGirl's picture

Actually they dindu nuffin, not even paying for the fair. 

#TheyNeedToGoBack ... to Africa.

Of Monkeys and Men: The Evidence about Race and Intelligence


Deathrips's picture

FUCK YOU SPAMMER!!!!!

Wouldnt want to hurt the criminals feelings or anything.

RIPS

froze25's picture

Interesting,  good read. Thanks

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Detective interviewed in the home invasion video: "we're just hoping to get a lot of eyes on that video, see if we can get a lead that way"

Sounds like good enough reason for the BART video to be released, no?  The home invasion report is Fremont, CA about 15 miles south of Oakland.

MillionDollarButter's picture

The video was calling it racist, not me, numb nuts. Just pointing out the double standard.

HardAssets's picture

'demanding food and money' ?

How bout I donate them a boot up their ass ?

Bastiat's picture

All they had to say was that they were withholding the videos because some of the perps appreared to be minors.

Crash Overide's picture

To quote Crackhead my longtime Puerto Rican friend:

"Stereotypes exist for a reason..."

MEFOBILLS's picture

Both races do it, for the most part, voluntarily.

 

There is a scale and violence to black crime, not present in other races.  So, using the word "both" is not accurate.  

It is two different data sets.

Kozakman's picture

He meant segregate themselves.

Conscious Reviver's picture

Who invaded, slaughtered innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Donnetsk? Here's a clue, it wasn't the HotenTots or the Crips or the Bloods.

Come on MeFo, usually you are pretty sharp. Maybe stick to comenting on money and banking which you are very good at?

froze25's picture

I have never heard of blacks leaving "their" neighborhood because the whites are moving in.

New_Meat's picture

IndyPat: go to any university, but don't say "both races"

Blacks with a non-SJW, non-Cone/BLT background are flummoxed at the self-segregation.

The_Juggernaut's picture

Armed robbery is a petty crime on BART?  WTF does one have to do to graduate to the big time?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

The next time you have an hour to kill, I highly recommend you use the time to watch the 2009 Vice documentary, The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia.  

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-05/cannibal-warlords-liberia-and-d...

Dancing Disraeli's picture

My journey from being a We-Are-All-The-Same egalitarian to an awakened race realist began with the Trayvon thing and was completed after I watched that doc.  No more illusions after that one.

Partition of the country would be the fairest way to move forward.

BlueGreen's picture

100% agreement, different evolutionary pessures different results.  Forced integration will never work.....probly was never supposed to.  

 

Divide and conquer 

Le Cagotini's picture

at some point it boils down to a) you can believe everything teacher & tv & the movies & books *tell* you to believe, or b) you can believe your own eyes. nothing has ever worked on the negro problem, and nothing is ever going to work. they are simply incapable of civilization. don't believe me? send your kids to any inner-city public school in Newark and get back to me. or Camden. or Philly. or Oakland. or New Orleans. or Miami. or Little Rock. or Detroit. or Chicago. or D.C. or L.A. or Dallas. or Cleveland. or Trenton. or Dover. or Houston. or Baltimore. or Flint. or Seattle. or Vegas. or St. Louis. or Atlanta. or Cincinnati. or Memphis. or San Diego. or Birmingham. or Indianapolis. or Pittsburgh. or Fontana. or San Jose. or Hartford, that wonderful home of all them insurance companies. (no ....wait ...) etc etc etc, until finally *all* the cities have been destroyed ... and all with the very best of intentions. 

because slavery, or some such stupid shit.

racism or realism: time to choose, amigos!

Rusty Shorts's picture

By Gary Brecher

FRESNO - I've written a little about some of the great military figures Liberia has given the world, like General Butt Naked and his platinum-blonde drag queen psycho killers. But I've never told the hilarious, totally sick story of how Liberia got the way it is. And it's too interesting to hold back any longer.

Liberian history is supposedly "tragic," which is newspaper code for "funny as Hell." I can't help it, it is. It's not like I don't sympathize. I do. I mean, which slum did your grandparents come from? Probably some starved village where the coal mine's been closed since it ate a whole shift of locals. How'd you like it if everybody in your neighborhood took up a collection to send you back there, even if you didn't speak a word of the language? "We feel you don't fit in in Santa Barbara and you'll never be truly happy until you're back in Lower Slobovia:"

That's how Liberia started. It was white people's idea from the start. They were worried about free blacks, who made up about a tenth of the 2 million black people in the US. The two extremes of the slavery issue, abolitionists and crazy slaveowners, agreed something had to be done about all those free blacks.

The abolitionists loved black people so much they wanted them to go far, far away. So did the slaveowners, who announced with no evidence at all that free blacks were "promoters of mischief." (I don't know what "mischief" means--maybe they TP'd those Gone With the Wind plantation houses.)

A group of rich white do-gooders including Francis Scott Key, who wrote "the Star Spangled Banner," got together to raise the money to send free blacks back to Africa. For them Key had a special version of the anthem: "Oh say can you see/the home of the brave? If so, you're standing too close/Go about 4000 miles southeast, to West Africaaaa."

Congress came through with a big grant and in 1819, a ship with 88 freed blacks and three white chaperons landed in that other success-story for re-planting blacks, Sierra Leone. After gassing up at Freetown, they headed down the coast to the promised land, Liberia.

Within three weeks of arriving at their new home, all three whites and 22 blacks died of fever. That's barely time to start naming things "free-" this and "free-that.

Instead they named the place "Perseverance." A little truth in advertising. The rich whites sitting home safe in the US were determined to persevere in Liberia, even if it meant shipping every black they could catch straight into the most disease-ridden, lethal climate in the world. They worked a deal with the US Navy that any slave ships intercepted on the high seas would be detoured to Liberia an dump their cargo there, which meant that no matter how many colonists died, more were always on the way.

It was like a do-gooder version of Darwin, only sped up. Most of the newcomers died so fast they barely had time to thank their benefactors, but a few survived. And they were the ones who married and had kids, so eventually you got a population that had some degree of resistance to all the tropical diseases.

Once they realized they weren't all going to die in the next week, the settlers went to work on the most fundamental thing in any society: setting up cliques. There were three big ones in Liberia: the freed slaves who were "black"; the ones who were "mulatto"; and way back there in the bush, the natives. Naturally, none of these cliques liked each other.

The next step, naturally, was sucking up to the people who abused you. Is this starting to remind you of high school? That's because high school is a totally typical example of how people act when they have to start a society from scratch.

So instead of making peace with the natives, the Liberians spent the 1840s trying to get officially recognized by the whites. The funny bit is that the European states didn't have too much problem granting it, but the US--the country that started Liberia with a huge grant from Congress--refused to recognize Liberia until 1862. Guess why. Yup: because the South might object to having a black ambassador in Washington D.C.

It makes you wonder how they finally agreed to recognize Liberia. I mean, it's 1862, the Confederacy's at war with the US, and some bureaucrat's still sweating over the decision: "Well, Mr. Lincoln, our focus groups show there might be a negative reaction in some of the border districts:"

By this time Liberia was a full-grown country, doing what West African coastal enclaves are supposed to do: getting ripped off in "development" loans from the West, having ridiculous border disputes over some fever-ridden chunk of bush, and making the inland natives feel like dirt. British banks ripped the Liberians off so badly that one Liberian president--"the Liberian Lincoln," no less--had to swim for his life, and ended up as shark food before he made it to a British ship in the harbor of Monrovia, the new Liberian capital city.

Monrovia was named after James Monroe, who was one of the supporters of theLiberian colonization plan. His famous comment on Liberia was, "Love you guys, wish you could stay longer, here's your hat."

My favorite border dispute was between Liberia and that other outpost of freedom, Sierra Leone. In 1883, Sierra Leone claimed territory that Liberia held. The British backed up the Sierra Leoneans; Uncle Sam decided to stay out of it, and the Liberians had to back down. Next it was the French, in the Ivory Coast next door, grabbing another chunk of territory. Through it all Uncle Sam kept his distance from his black nephews in Liberia. It was like he was a little embarrassed by them.

One reason the US might've been embarrassed by the Liberians is that they kept trying to look white. And they succeeded. Take a look at the pictures of Liberianleaders from the 1800s and they look like Confederate generals with a tan--a lot of white blood in there. The Liberians were proud of that; the US wasn't.

These "Americo-Liberians" were never more than five percent of the population, but they ran the coast, had the money, understood more about the outside world--so they considered themselves the elite. They felt even whiter when they compared themselves with the natives, who were pure West African--some of the darkest people in the world. To remind everybody of the difference, the settlers called themselves "Americo-Liberians" and put on a lot of airs, with stiff collars and muttonchop sideburns--not to mention that other mark of higher civilization, land grabs.

Nobody was really sure how far inland Liberia's borders went. Basically, it was as much as they wanted or could grab. Nobody worried much about the natives; they were black and uncivilized. The Americo-Liberians were as racist as the slaveowners their ancestors had crossed the ocean to get away from. They sent their kids to school in the US to make sure they didn't get too African, and didn't even try to find out who lived in the jungle they'd claimed until the 1860s.

By the 1890s, you had the ultimate in, uh, black comedy: Liberian gunboats sailing upriver to bombard savage native tribes who were resisting civilization. In fact, they were resisting it too well: when the Americo-Liberian army marched inland to teach the Gola tribe a lesson, they got their cafe-au-lait asses kicked.

Liberian military history recovered its former glory in 1917, when Liberia formally joined the Allies against the Germans. There was panic among the General Staff in Berlin when the news arrived. But there was rejoicing in Monrovia, because it meant all German assets in Liberia could be seized and handed out to deserving Americo-Liberian pals.

But then unrest flared up inland, in darkest Liberia. The Americo-Liberian government sent a party to investigate. It turned out the tribes back there had heard a rumor that slavery was going to be abolished, and were outraged. The government explained it was just PR, a decree to impress the foreigners. But the natives were still restless, so the government had to send a big force to convince the Kru, the biggest tribe, to be peaceful by sacking their towns and killing off their warriors.

World War II was Liberia's golden age--by Liberian standards, that is. Once again the country took its stand for liberty, enlisting on the Allied side. But this time that actually meant something, because while WW I was basically a European war, WW II really was a worldwide deal. So the US set up some bases on the Liberiancoast, with plenty of trickle-down for the locals. All kinds of fancy Western ideas started percolating through Monrovia. Women got the vote and in the early Sixties the Peace Corps did some of its earliest do-gooding in Liberia.

What did those kids actually do in the Corps, anyway? As far as I know, they just hugged a lot of dark-skinned people and meant well. It's kind of fun to think of these white American hippies' welcoming party in Monrovia, with all the snooty mulattoes in town sipping cocktails and warning them about those terribly, terribly primitive blacks one meets inland.

Liberia's biggest break ever came when some genius realized that since Liberiawas officially a country--recognized since 1862, remember!--it had the right to sell ship registrations. Which it started doing, cut-rate, to every tramp steamer that didn't want to bother with lifeboats or safety inspections.

Which is why, every time an oil tanker goes aground while the captain was dead drunk, or comes apart mid-ocean, the papers call it "a Liberian-registered vessel." Your assurance of quality on the high seas.

That one's still a big money-spinner for Liberia. Actually Liberia was doing OK, by African standards, right up to the 70s. They'd had the same president from 1944 to 1971, an upstanding old guy with the great name of William Vacanarach Shadrach Tubman. With his suit and horn-rimmed glasses, he looks a little like Papa Doc Duvalier, the scary little dude who ruled Hatii at about the same time. But Tubman was a much more peaceful guy, who actually tried to include the inland tribes in the party. Investment picked up, schools got built, peace almost looked ready to break out. Almost.

New_Meat's picture

Greenie on ya, Rustie!

Up for a smoke?  Some place public, don't cha' know ;-)

- Ned

vato poco's picture

shorter Liberia epic: have had 200 years to get their shit together. failed miserably. result: same as it ever was - banana republic shithole, serving as hell on earth. 

this is still all whitey's failt, right? 

Oldrepublic's picture

Tubman died a natural death, but the next two presidents, Tolbert and Doe were murdered, Doe killed Tolbert in his bedroom, and Doe was killed and his ears cut off by Charles Taylor who became President, now a prisoner who committed war crimes.  

Chuck Walla's picture

"Armed robbery is a petty crime on BART?  WTF does one have to do to graduate to the big time?"

 

Advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws.

Caciqué's picture

when robbed use the N-word maybe?

skeelos's picture

"Armed robbery is a petty crime on BART? WTF does one have to do to graduate to the big time?"

Use the wrong pronoun when addressing a transgender.

New_Meat's picture

that is very, very, very offensive in SF. 

"Pronoun-misuse is a plague that Bush should have committed to eradicate." -SanFranNan

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I have committed to no longer using pronouns.  Maybe verbs too -- eventually.

post turtle saver's picture

"next time, we'll pick our own cotton"

IntercoursetheEU's picture

Why do so many people live in California in the first place? Liberal hell hole.