Landsharks violating civil rights?

[LPMan59]

just saw on the local news that Landsharks in Broadripple is being investigated for civil rights violations due to the bar's dresscode which prohibits gang attire, baggy pants, etc. the complaint alleges the dresscode discriminates against African Americans.

and the hilarious part? the general manager who handles the dresscode is African American.

 

[chraland51]

As long as the owner of the facility does not take any federal or state assistance which would require him to let anyone of legal age into his establishment, he should be allowed to establish a dress code. I do not know anything about Landsharks, but it always irritates me that private ownership of almost everything is being attacked by those that want to dilute the rights of private ownership. There will probably be several low-life liberal attorneys out there who will jump at the chance to get in on this attack on private property. I might be all wet, but those are just my two cents.

 

[Big John]

Coyotes (Country/Western Bar) just across the river in Kentucky is the same way they also have a sister bar attached that plays just rap/hip hop music too.

I was in town for an Easyrider convention and was not admitted until I removed my bandanna. They have metal detectors and several LARGE security personnel with wands also. I did however still go in armed somewhat I had a boot knife that nobody notices all I have to do is show my little card from my Orthopedic Surgeon since I have a bit of titanium in that leg.

I believe it is the owners right to refuse service to anyone as long as it is done fairly, if you don't like it don't dress like a "GANSTA".

 

[Scutter01]

Investigated by whom? Civil rights violations are a civil, not criminal matter.

 

[4sarge]

Department of Justice

Criminal Section

HISTORY

One of the oldest of the Civil Rights Division's units, the Criminal Section enforces laws that date to the post Civil War Reconstruction Era. Originally a part of the Criminal Division, the Criminal Section and its enforcement authority was moved to the Civil Rights Division when the CRD was created in 1957. In the early years, the Division was organized geographically. Eventually, as more civil rights laws were passed, the Division reorganized into functional subject areas. The Criminal Section is unique within the Division, prosecuting criminal cases while the remainder of the Division handles civil matters.
Some of the Criminal Section's earliest prosecutions involved the murder of minorities and civil rights workers in the South during the 1960's prior to desegregation. In 1968 Congress broadened the scope of protection afforded by civil rights statutes by passing a law that made it a crime to interfere by force or threat of force with certain rights (such as employment, housing, use of public facilities, etc.) because of someone's race, religion, color or national origin. Those protections were increased even further twenty years later when Congress enacted a law (amended in 1996) making violent conduct against religious property and those exercising their religious beliefs a federal crime. Congress also made it a federal crime in 1994 to use violence to interfere with providers of reproductive health care. The cases handled by the Section have always been of great interest to the public and have sometimes become the subject of films, documentaries, books, and television programs.
Some of the historically significant events in which the Criminal Section has been directly involved include investigations of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Medgar Evers, the fatal shootings by the National Guard at Kent State University, the deaths of three civil rights workers (Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner) in Mississippi, and the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles.

MISSION
The Criminal Section prosecutes cases involving the violent interference with liberties and rights defined in the Constitution or federal law. The rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected. In general, it is the use of force, threats, or intimidation that characterize a federal criminal violation of an individual's civil rights. Our cases often involve incidents that are invariably of intense public interest. While some violations may most appropriately be pursued by the federal Government, others can be addressed by either the federal Government or by state or local prosecutors. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that acts constituting federal criminal civil rights violations are sufficiently remedied, whether prosecuted federally or by local authorities.
The types of acts that may involve violations of federal criminal civil rights laws are:

HATE CRIMES (<A href="http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php">18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 245 and 42 U.S.C. § 3631) -- Violent and intimidating acts of racial, ethnic and religious hatred that interfere with federally protected rights, such as housing, employment, voting, and public services.
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242) -- Intentional acts by law enforcement officials who misuse their positions to unlawfully deprive individuals of constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from unwarranted assaults, illegal arrests and searches, and theft of property.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING (18 U.S.C. §§ 1581-1594) – Use of force or threats of force or other forms of coercion to compel labor or services, including commercial sex acts, from victims. Modern day slavery can involve migrant farm laborers, sweat shop workers, domestic servants, and brothel workers. Victims may be U.S. citizens or aliens, or adults or children.
INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE (18 U.S.C. § 248) -- Violence directed at abortion clinics or health care providers, such as doctors or nurses.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and DESTRUCTION OF RELIGIOUS PROPERTY (18 U.S.C. § 247) -- Violent conduct targeting religious houses of worship, usually involving the arson of churches or synagogues.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 594 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1)) -- Voter intimidation or voter suppression schemes that target victims on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion.
​

The punishment imposed by these statutes generally depends upon the injury suffered by the victim. The more serious the injury, the more severe the penalty. In some cases, where the victim had died as a result of the defendant's conduct, the death penalty applies.

WHAT WE DO


Every year the Criminal Section receives and reviews several thousand complaints from citizens, law enforcement agencies, and organizations describing possible violations of the federal criminal civil rights statutes. These complaints may be received directly by the Criminal Section in the form of letters and phone calls or by referral from federal investigative agencies, such as FBI, OIG, BOP, and the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. The majority of complaints allege misconduct by law enforcement officers such as state or local police officers, federal law enforcement officers, prison superintendents, correctional officers, state and county judges, or other public officials. There are five general stages in bringing potential criminal civil rights violations to prosecution. In sequence, they are:

1. receipt of complaint
2. investigation
3. grand jury
4. indictment
5. trial

Each complaint received is analyzed to decide whether an investigation is appropriate.
If an investigation is recommended, the FBI (the primary investigative agency) conducts the investigation by interviewing witnesses and collecting evidence and sends its report both to the responsible attorney within the Section, as well as to the U.S. Attorney's office with responsibility for federal prosecutions within the geographic area where the incident occurred. When the investigation is completed, the prosecutors must then decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prove a federal violation and legal authority to pursue the case in federal court. Evidence considered may include statements from witnesses and victims, medical records, physical evidence, and official records documenting the incident. [Note: the federal criminal civil rights laws have a five year statute of limitations from the date of the incident, except in cases involving an intentional killing (generally not bound by the statute of limitations) and religious interference incidents (seven year statute of limitations)].
In order to prosecute a felony case where the defendant could face imprisonment of more than a year, evidence must first be presented to a grand jury, which then votes on whether an indictment should be returned. If an indictment is returned, the Criminal Section often prosecutes the case jointly with the local U.S. Attorney in the federal District where the incident occurred. There are times when the Section or the U.S. Attorney may decide to prosecute the case without direct involvement by the other office. The Criminal Section also prosecutes juvenile offenders, who may be involved in hate crimes such as cross burnings and vandalism of homes or churches.
In the areas of police misconduct, housing rights, and access to health care, the Criminal Section may refer complaints that do not present a criminal violation to other Sections within the Civil Rights Division that have authority under separate civil statutes to file suit when a pattern of abuse is discovered.
While not all complaints received result in investigation, nor all investigations lead to a grand jury or eventual prosecution, the Criminal Section seeks to review all possible violations to ensure that individual liberties are protected. Often, local authorities will take the lead in prosecuting violent conduct under state statutes even though such conduct also constitutes a violation of federal criminal civil rights laws. In such cases, the local prosecutive effort is presumed to vindicate federal interests.
Infrequently, however, even if there has been a local prosecution, it may be determined (often with the support of the local authorities) that a subsequent federal prosecution is necessary to remedy the criminal wrongdoing. The Supreme Court has upheld this "dual prosecution" policy as not violating the Constitution's double jeopardy clause, since the federal Government is a separate sovereign from the state, charging a crime under its unique authority, even though the case may be based on the same incident. In addition to prosecuting cases, the Criminal Section actively participates in providing technical assistance and information to the public, law enforcement and other Government agencies regarding the federal criminal civil rights laws by attending conferences, providing training, and making recommendations for legislation to further the protection of individual rights and liberties.
​

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Scutter01]

Huh. You learn something new every day, I guess. I didn't see anything in there about clothing discrimination, though. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Theoretically, you could then go after any business with a sign that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service".

 

[Dryden]

I would think that in order for the plaintiff to win a lawsuit like this, they would have to establish that dressing like a "gangsta" is an inherent trait of African Americans, thus automatically discriminating against that race. If the dress code applies equally to all wannabe and actual thugs, regardless of race, then I don't see how it can be discriminatory.

.

That's going to be a sticky point.
Every kid under the age of 25 dresses in this "fashion". Race has nothing to do with it. Granted, the trend started in the black community, but it has since transcended all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

 

[rambone]

Lots and lots of bars have dress codes. There's nothing racist about it. The fact is, that for some odd reason, people who wear baggy pants, with embroidered lettering on them, with hats cocked sideways, displaying colored bandanas... etc... tend to cause more trouble.

 

[glockednlocked]

ridiculous This is not about race exclusion in anyway. And I think the fact that the plantiffs insinuate that any racial group exclusivly wish to look "hip hop" or "gangster" is offensive. Have they never seen the rainbow of colors the gangsters at wal-mart come in.

 

[cce1302]

I would think that in order for the plaintiff to win a lawsuit like this, they would have to establish that dressing like a "gangsta" is an inherent trait of African Americans, thus automatically discriminating against that race. If the dress code applies equally to all wannabe and actual thugs, regardless of race, then I don't see how it can be discriminatory. The fact that the manager is black should cause anyone with an ounce of common sense to pause and actually think about the issue, but common sense has never stopped the professional victims and their deck of race cards.

This.



That is all.

 

[Dashman010]

Investigated by whom? Civil rights violations are a civil, not criminal matter.

I think it's actually the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (a division of the Indiana AG's office I believe) that is investigating the complaint. It is not the US Dept of Justice.

 

[Indecision]

What's next, going after the bars that require a collar on your shirt citing that it discriminates against people that can't afford collared shirts?

 

[NewsShooter]

I think it's actually the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (a division of the Indiana AG's office I believe) that is investigating the complaint. It is not the US Dept of Justice.

ya. it is the ICRC. Indy bar accused of discrimination

hell, i wear a baseball hat everywhere i go and occasionally a bar will ask me to remove it before going in because they've said they are sometimes gang related.

i either take it off or go to the bar next door...funny how whining and accusations never enter the mix for 99% of other patrons.

 

[MyGlockRocks19]

You know, I can guess at exactly what the intention of that dress code is, and I approve of it....they want to keep thugs, and thug-a-likes, out of their bar. I personally wouldn't frequent a place frequented by them, and I imagine that Landsharks realizes that other people also think this way, and wants to cater to customers like me. There is nothing illegal about this...its about not wanting to go somewhere where there is a bunch of drunken idiots tripping over their pants and shouting at each other, and a business trying to provide that atmosphere.

This isn't a race issue, this is a culture issue.

 

[ejscott]

i fell like the owners of any place have the right to refuse entry to anyone they want, for any reason. end of story. if you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. just like smoking in bars it sould be up to the owner, and nobody else.

 

[66MustangCvt]

I just went there tonight. My wife's friend is dating the guy (Neil). He seemed like a nice guy. I didn't ask him about this though. Figured it might be a touchy subject. Plus we got in for free and cut through the line.