# Is the New York branch of the NAACP completely retarded? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973 "2003-07-21T18:42:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/41 "2003-07-23T04:01:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Do Sally and Bobby have any cause of action against Crazy Carl? Or are they s.o.l. because, as you apparently insist, that would infringe on Libertaria’s right to set its standards as low as it wants and Crazy Carl’s right to do whatever he damn well pleases that is within the law of his own jurisdiction? \*\* Obviously the _correct_ answer is “it depends on the substantive tort law of Fredonia and the application of its choice of law rules.” Just to be clear. My view is that yes, they should be SOL, at least insofar as they want to sue Crazy Carl (they obviously have a claim against Joe Crackhead, though I suspect he’s judgment-proof). A real-world example: dram shop cases. Most states do not apply their dram shop laws (laws which impose liability on bars for overserving their patrons) extraterritorially – a bar in state A, which has no dram shop law, will not be held liable for the drunken torts of a patron who drives into state B (which has such a law) who sues in state B. See, e.g., [Thoring v. Bottonsek](http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/10555.htm), where North Dakota refuses to apply its dram shop law to a Montana tavern that overserved a customer who subsequently caused an auto accident in North Dakota (Montana had no dram shop law). That is, in my view, correct. The decision to impose liability on taverns for the torts of their drunken customers is one of state policy – some states take the view that patrons should be solely responsible for their own alcohol intake, and others think more expansive liability is more just. Fine. But for one state to impose such liability on a tavern in another state is tantamount to imposing certain policy choices on the second state. That is not appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/42 "2003-07-23T04:27:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Most states do not apply their dram shop laws (laws which impose liability on bars for overserving their patrons) extraterritorially – a bar in state A, which has no dram shop law, will not be held liable for the drunken torts of a patron who drives into state B (which has such a law) who sues in state B. Bwahahahahahaha! You have fallen into my trap, for I have read every single dramshop case ever published by a court since the dawn of the 20th century! Hey, it was a law review thing. In any event, I call shenanigans on your claim that “most states do not apply their own dram shop laws . . . extraterritorially.” _Compare Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc.,_ 534 A.2d 1268, 1270-71 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (law of D.C., where service occurred, allowed dramshop action even though accident occurred in Maryland, where service occurred) _with Ling v. Jan’s Liquors_, 703 P.2d 731, 735-39 (Kan. 1985) (law of Kansas, where accident occurred, barred a dramshop suit against Missouri dramshop that sold booze to minor tortfeasor). I’d also point out that damn few states have no dramshop liability. Last time I counted, 44 states and the District of Columbia impose some form of liability for negligent provision of alchoholic beverages. Also, while Montana did not have a dramshop law in effect in 1984, it has a standard dramshop act in place today. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 16-6-305, 27-1-710 (creating liability for provision to minors and intoxicated persons, as well as for forced intoxication and misrepresentation of alcoholic content). ---
**Author:** ![SpinnerGirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@SpinnerGirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpinnerGirl)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/43 "2003-07-23T06:00:31Z")
The NAACP in general is so retarded, I even made them my ‘Spinners of the Week’ ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/44 "2003-07-23T06:37:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* Throwing dope across the border, then picking it up on the other side, enables a person to avoid smuggling charges? Ridiculous. > \*\* TeeHee, this reminds me of a ludicrous charade from WWII. Warning - the has nothing to do with the argument but is an historical quirk related to **minty green’s** question. In early WWII exactly this happened and was winked at by the federal government. After the fall of France and before the Neutrality Act was superseded, manufacturers flew airplanes to hastily built strips right on the Canadian border in North Dakota and Montana. Then a tow line was fastened to them, tossed over the border (yes, actually tossed) and they were towed across into Canada and then ferried to England. Newsreels of the day showed it happening but federal officials were too busy to notice and nothing was done. P.S. - For you youngsters, a newsreel was a 10 minute news film that showed along with the other pre-feature short subjects. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/45 "2003-07-23T13:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Bwahahahahahaha! You have fallen into my trap, for I have read every single dramshop case ever published by a court since the dawn of the 20th century! > > Hey, it was a law review thing.\*\* I admit I’m operating with one hand tied behind my back – state case law research is hit or miss using Google, and I have access to neither Lexis nor Westlaw for primary research nor Shepard’s to test the validity of the cases I do run across. I would like to read the ALR cited in the case (wink, wink, nudge nudge). But reading the cases cited in the North Dakota decision I cited above, it seems pretty clear that there’s a split on enforcing the dram shop laws _of the state of sale_ extraterritorially, and (more to the point for this example) that applying a dram shop law extraterritorially _to the state of injury_ is decidedly more unusual. As the court notes, the few cases where actions against a tavern in a state without a dram shop law have succeeded have been on premised on a general negligence theory rather than the extraterritorial extension of the state of injury’s dram shop law, and in at least one of those cases the tavern’s home state has refused to extend full faith and credit to the judgment on precisely the coequal soveriegn grounds we’re discussing here. This actually makes a great deal of sense. Suppose you are deciding whether or not you want to open a tavern. One of your considerations is the potential for liability. If you live in a state with a dram shop law, you will factor that risk into your decision – you are aware of the law, know you must comply with it, and are aware of the risks of failing to do so. You will not be shocked or surprised that you are liable for your customers, and the mere fact that one of them manages to scurry across the border before getting into an accident does not alter your risk analysis. Holding you liable in that case is justifiable. On the other hand, if you live in a state without a dram shop law, you open your tavern on the assumption that you do not have that liability. Your expectations are different. You shouldn’t be liable just because some neighboring state takes a differing view of things.\*\* > [@](#): > > In any event, I call shenanigans on your claim that “most states do not apply their own dram shop laws . . . extraterritorially.” _Compare Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc.,_ 534 A.2d 1268, 1270-71 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (law of D.C., where service occurred, allowed dramshop action even though accident occurred in Maryland, where service occurred) _with Ling v. Jan’s Liquors_, 703 P.2d 731, 735-39 (Kan. 1985) (law of Kansas, where accident occurred, barred a dramshop suit against Missouri dramshop that sold booze to minor tortfeasor).\*\* Actually, this illustrates the difference I’m referring to. Your hypothetical is more like the second case – the state of injury is trying to use its dram shop law against a tavern in a state without such a law. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’d also point out that damn few states have no dramshop liability. Last time I counted, 44 states and the District of Columbia impose some form of liability for negligent provision of alchoholic beverages. Also, while Montana did not have a dramshop law in effect in 1984, it has a standard dramshop act in place today. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 16-6-305, 27-1-710 (creating liability for provision to minors and intoxicated persons, as well as for forced intoxication and misrepresentation of alcoholic content). \*\* All of which is interesting, but wholly irrelevant. Perhaps one day Libertaria will reinstate its crack prohibition. That doesn’t change the analysis on your Libertaria hypothetical _today_. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/46 "2003-07-23T13:08:05Z")
Er…in my second paragraph, first sentence, it should read “…_of_ the state of injury…” ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/47 "2003-07-23T13:36:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Obviously, they disagree with you. So what’s your beef with what they choose to advocate? Do us all the courtesy of taking on the merits of their position, not pointlessly sniping them for having a position at all. I am saying that the decision by the NAACP to have a position, any postion on an inflammitory subject like gun control is a bad idea. This isn’t pointless sniping. It’s a legitimate statement. > [@](#): > > A sarcastic note that your blanket statement about “everyday folks like me who are not black” sounds remarkably like the ignorant statements of a certain Mr. Heston made in a recent documentary you may have heard about. I didn’t hear about it. I have no idea what you are talking about. > [@](#): > > Does Jim Brady count? I don’t think he’s black. I’m reasonably sure there are one or two other white folk who lean towards gun control. Are you making the claim that more blacks are for gun control than whites? Do you have any cite for this? Even if this is the case, is this the role of the NAACP. Not advancing colored people at all, simply advancing any agenda that most colored people agree with? Most blacks are democrats. Should they be involved only with democrat politicians or would they be better served by working with both sides of the poliltcal spectrum? > [@](#): > > As the judge noted even while dismissing their claim, black folk do “suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York.” They were, in other words, attempting to “advance colored people” by getting fewer of them killed. Of course, having more gun control will ultimately result in more gun deaths. On this, I am certain we will never agree. > [@](#): > > I’m glad to hear you have only the NAACP’s best interests at heart. Perhaps you could write a letter to Mr. Mfume and advise him that his organization has gone whack, and that he’s risking the all-important support of white male conservatives? Ya. Who cares what a bunch of wackjobs think that support the second ammendment. It’s only more than half of the country. Besides, if somebody at the NAACP gets the idea that it would advance colored people to have only hydrogen fuel cell cars why don’t they take on the oil industry. And maybe it would be best for black people if we had socialized medicine so they should take on the HMO’s too. Can’t you see that after a while of this, they will piss off not only the 87% of the country that isn’t black but a good portion of the 13% that are? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/48 "2003-07-23T14:26:35Z")
Where on earth are you getting this ridiculous notion that everyone who isn’t black is a supporter of gun rights? Taking a pro-gun control position does NOT “piss off the 87% of the country that isn’t black.” ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/49 "2003-07-23T15:47:05Z")
I have taken no such position. I specifically said in my post that “more than half the country” supports gun rights. Not 87%. Not only non-blacks. Please cite where I said that _taking a pro-gun control position_ pisses off the 87% of the country that isn’t black. As far as I can tell, you just made it up. My position in a nutshell, for the third or so time, is that the NAACP taking positions _on any issues_ not directly related to black americans will only result in alienating blacks and non-blacks alike. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/50 "2003-07-23T15:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Debaser said- \*Besides, if somebody at the NAACP gets the idea that it would advance colored people to have only hydrogen fuel cell cars why don’t they take on the oil industry. Don’t you think it kind of willfully ignorant to pretend that fossil fuel cunsumption is as big an issue to the black community as street violence? > [@](#): > > Ya. Who cares what a bunch of wackjobs think that support the second ammendment. It’s only more than half of the country. Does everyone who supports the second ammendment support all gun manufacturer practices? On a personal note, I don’t like a civil court end-run around criminal cases. If the manufacturers are willfully supplying the blackmarket then there should be criminal charges of some sort. It’s unfair IMO to use the lower threshhold of proof needed in civil cases. Of course, IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/51 "2003-07-23T17:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CarnalK \* > Don’t you think it kind of willfully ignorant to pretend that fossil fuel cunsumption is as big an issue to the black community as street violence? I never said it was. However, I do think that _some_ black people consider fossil fuel consumption a bigger issue than street violence. So what? My point is that by taking positions on issues that aren’t based on race, the NAACP only alienates potential supporters. > [@](#): > > Does everyone who supports the second ammendment support all gun manufacturer practices? Nope. I never said this either. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/52 "2003-07-23T18:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > Please cite where I said that _taking a pro-gun control position_ pisses off the 87% of the country that isn’t black. Do the following words ring any bells? > [@](#): > > Can’t you see that after a while of this, **they will piss off not only the 87% of the country that isn’t black** but a good portion of the 13% that are? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/53 "2003-07-23T19:38:21Z")
Sooooo…are we done talking about dram shop laws? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/54 "2003-07-23T20:12:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Do the following words ring any bells? Why don’t you quote the whole thing? > [@](#): > > _by Debaser_ > Besides, if somebody at the NAACP gets the idea that it would advance colored people to have only hydrogen fuel cell cars why don’t they take on the oil industry. And maybe it would be best for black people if we had socialized medicine so they should take on the HMO’s too. > > Can’t you see that after a while of this, they will piss off not only the 87% of the country that isn’t black but a good portion of the 13% that are? You seem to be deliberately mis-quoting me. It is clear that I am talking about the NAACP taking **any** position on **any** issue that isn’t directly related to black people. After a while of this (taking on issues that are off topic) they will alienate blacks and non-blacks alike. I specifically mention two issues as examples that aren’t gun control and you somehow read me to be writing about gun control? :wally ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/55 "2003-07-23T20:49:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Sooooo…are we done talking about dram shop laws? See, this is what happens when lack of time time compels me to limit myself to the obviously silly statements instead of the interesting hijacks. Sorry, I will try to get back to it later. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of extraterritoriality. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/56 "2003-07-23T22:27:44Z")
minty green > [@](#): > > So if I am in Texas and conspire with someone else to murder you, and he shoots you in Oklahoma, then I haven’t committed murder? > > Oh, wait, that pretty much is your position. Throwing dope across the border, then picking it up on the other side, enables a person to avoid smuggling charges? Ridiculous. You seem to have completely missed my point: I was giving examples of silly loopholes, and saying that just because there are examples of where someone is _technically_ outside a state’s jurisdiction but they can still be charged, that doesn’t mean that it’s open season on legislating the actions of other state’s residents. Your examples involve a situation where a specific in event in state A is a direct result of actions in state B, and you are trying to expand that to a case where negligent actions in state B indirectly lead to the event in state A. I am willing to concede that there are cases where an action performed in one state can fall under the jurisdiction of another if they lead to injury in another state. Are you willing to concede that there are cases where this is not the case? Or is “rational interest” synonymous in your mind with “jurisdiction”? > [@](#): > > A sarstic note that your blanket statement about “everyday folks like me who are not black” sounds remarkably like the ignorant statements of a certain Mr. Heston made in a recent documentary you may have heard about. What statement would that be? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/57 "2003-07-24T04:10:13Z")
Bowling for Columbine. Perhaps you heard of the interview Mr. Heston gave to Michael Moore? Ugly racial stuff, it was. > [@](#): > > I am willing to concede that there are cases where an action performed in one state can fall under the jurisdiction of another if they lead to injury in another state. Are you willing to concede that there are cases where this is not the case? Of course. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/58 "2003-07-24T12:20:37Z")
**minty** wrote: > [@](#): > > Bowling for Columbine. Perhaps you heard of the interview Mr. Heston gave to Michael Moore? Ugly racial stuff, it was. I’m actually quite stunned that you would make this assertion, especially after the numerous threads about BfC when it came out. Moore’s “interview” with Mr. Heston was a contrived ambush by Moore and there were numerous cites to support it. Mr. Heston’s roll in the NRA came about because of his staunch support of civil rights, including marching with Dr. King in the 60’s when it was definitely not the “in” thing to do in Hollywood. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/59 "2003-07-24T12:35:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Bowling for Columbine. Perhaps you heard of the interview Mr. Heston gave to Michael Moore? Ugly racial stuff, it was. > > Of course. \*\* Here’s [_Spinsanity’s_ analysis](http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html) of some of the many distortions and contradictions in BFC. (BTW this site is written by three lefties, although they do a pretty good job of providing balanced criticism.) Here’s [Snopes (also not right wing) exposing another Michael Moore urban legend](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm) (“the Bush Administration gave permission for a private Saudi jet to visit 5 cities to pick up around 20 members of the bin Laden family, over the objections of the FBI.”) Michael Moore is a talented and amusing artist, but he should not be taken as a realistic view of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973/60 "2003-07-24T13:25:34Z")
Even if Moore’s accusations are true and he did manage to trick Heston into saying this phrase that he is accused of > [@](#): > > _by Charlton Heston_ > We have more mixed ethnicity here This statement taken by Moore has what in common with my statement exactly? > [@](#): > > _by Debaser_ > Taking on issues like this is just a bad idea for them. They are just going to drive away potential members that don’t agree with the positions they are taking on issues. They will also earn the ire of everyday folks like me who are not black. The more they anger the rest of the voters the less power they will have to enact change. Since this is the third or so time in this thread that You have been asked for an explination of what these two statements have in common, I expect an answer. You accusations that Charlton Heston is a racist are laughable. He was championing civil rights long before it was the fashionable thing to do. Since the Moore documentary quoting Heston is so well debunked by many sources, I can see why you were being so vague about it. If knew it wouldn’t stand up you shouldn’t have brought it up at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-new-york-branch-of-the-naacp-completely-retarded/189973.md?page=4)