Woman in Fargo confrontation loses job

[This post has been updated to include details on a reconciliation]

The woman who was filmed in a tirade against three Somali women in a Fargo parking lot is going to be fired from her accounting job, the Fargo Forum reports.

“Our phone has been ringing this morning hundreds of times. It’s ringing right now,” a man who identified himself as a partner at Horab & Wentz tells reporter Tu-Uyen Tran. “We’re the ones getting the brunt of this. No one else is.”

The woman reportedly was upset that the three Somali women parked so close to her that she couldn’t get in.

They tell WDAY the woman’s request to move started off badly and only got worse:

When Hensley came out of the store and found the car parked too close to hers, she mocked Leyla Hassan’s misaligned eyes, saying they were obviously the reason for the bad parking job, according to Sarah Hassan, who tried to defend her sister by demanding to know what Hensley was getting at. It’s a sore topic, Sarah Hassan said, because her sister needs surgery but insurance won’t cover it.

Leyla Hassan said she apologized to Hensley for parking too close and tried to pull out to avoid confrontation. But she said she couldn’t because Hensley got so close she worried she’d run over the woman’s toes.

In the meantime, the confrontation between Hensley and Sarah Hassan was heating up.

Hassan said Hensley pointed to a Donald-Trump campaign sticker on her car and told the Muslim women he would deport them. Hensley also told them that Muslims were all going to hell, Hassan said, and had made the threat about killing Muslims at least once before she started recording.

“The way she was staring at me — that was really scary,” Hassan said. “That’s why we had to call the police and tell them about everything.”

Sarah Hassan denied anyone mocked Jesus in the confrontation. “We Muslims, we believe in Jesus, too,” she told WDAY. “If I abuse Jesus it’s like I’m abusing my own god and I not going to be considered a Muslim.”

[Update 9 pm 7/27]- The police chief of Fargo has engineered a reconciliation and made the following post on Facebook. BTW, someone should start a GoFundMe effort to raise money for the young woman to get the eye surgery she says she needs.

**** Message from the Chief ****
The incident that happened at the Walmart parking lot and then went viral on social media shows we have some things to work on as a community and as individuals. The vast majority of us, if we look to the past of our grandparents, great grandparents or those before them – we identify with their heritage and have some pride in it. I, for example have a mother that came across the ocean in a boat from Sweden and my father’s family came from Ireland.

Others in our community have heritage that goes back to the Far East, Middle East or to Africa and have that same pride in holding on to pieces of their heritage. We are all a little different and that is okay, in fact it’s good – if we strive to understand each other, accept each other and respect each other. If we do that, our diversity can make us stronger as a community.

Unfortunately, incidents like what happened this week and the social media commentary following it can cause further division and set us back from progress we are trying to make as a community.

However, I want to put before you an example of what can be accomplished even though mistakes were made and unfortunate words were said. Amber Hensley, Sarah Hassan and Leyla Hassan have all expressed regret regarding their interaction and language with each other.

With an openness to reconciliation, these women have come together and talked through this incident and expressed their sincere regrets, apologies and most importantly – forgiveness to each other. This process has also allowed them to gain understanding and respect for each other.

Not everything is perfect in this resolution. We have some ugliness in our community that needs to be addressed and worked on. Social media shows us that… However, perhaps we can all take a lesson from what was an ugly unfortunate interaction and how even despite words being said that cannot be taken back, forgiveness and understanding can still be achieved.

I want to thank these women for allowing us to facilitate their interest in getting together in order to work through this for the betterment of themselves and our community.

Chief David Todd

  • lusophone

    Could see that coming a mile away. Unless she was working for Breitbart or the Trump administration, she was gonna lose her job.

  • Mike

    As horrible a character as Hensley is, I think it’s a slippery slope we tread on when people get fired from their jobs because of obnoxious things they did captured on social media.

    This is the problem with the Big Brother surveillance state that we all now live in, whether we participate in social media or not. For those who champion Hensley’s firing and shaming, I invite them to ponder how the same could be done to them through edited video, doctored photos, etc. Technology makes it very easy these days to make it appear that someone has done something they might not have done at all, or something that was completely distorted or taken out of context.

    When you factor in the lynch mob mentality and the doxxing that occurs with some frequency, this is a dangerous situation for people’s civil liberties, freedom of expression, and physical safety.

    • Jim in RF

      With you. Almost anything can be faked up and turned around, and it isn’t just an Islamaphobe working for an accounting firm — it could be a lesbian teaching in a Catholic school.

    • jon

      1) Not all slopes are slippery.
      2) A doctored video is much different from one that is not, particularly when the accused responds with “I’m so sorry I did that” instead of “that never happened, that video is a fake.”
      3) If you don’t want your actions publicized, don’t do them in public. While social media and cameras have started capturing and publishing these interactions, should there have been the unhappy coincidence of her manager walking past during the exchange would the outcome have been any different?

      While we need to be vigilant for a slippery slope, I don’t think the slope is near as steep or slippery as people assume, if a video is contested then it can be reviewed to determine it authenticity… if it’s not disputed, and it’s in a public space, then how you actually represent yourself in public is fair game as far as I’m concerned.

      • Mike

        If the accused isn’t on social media, what then? What if some malicious person decides to frame another for something, or radically distort some action?

        Even if a person is on social media, the herd behavior of humanity is such that many people would rather believe something bad, falsely, than not.

        Look at the differences on Twitter, for example, between the retweet counts for false or distorted statements, and the corrections that follow. The retweets for the former far outpace the numbers for the latter.

        In the 21st century, “trial by media” has been supplanted by “trial by social media”. It’s not an improvement.

        • king harvest

          Libel and slander laws are still on the book.

        • “trial by media”
          “trial by social media”.

          You’re talking about public opinion and the only way to prevent public opinion is not to allow it.

          • Mike

            Public opinion as determined by people with the loudest voices and biggest platforms. Might doesn’t make right in that regard. Look at all the damage McCarthyism did in decades past. That was “public opinion”. It was also mass hysteria.

          • // McCarthyism did in decades past. That was “public opinion”. It was also mass hysteria.

            There is public opinion forcing a reaction. And then there is an action forcing public opinion. That’s the difference between McCarthyism and Fargo.

            Three Somali women don’t have the loudest voices, nor do they have the biggest platforms. The Fargo Forum did what newspapers have done what newspapers have done for generations: Something happened and they reported on it.

            The only difference is there was a mechanism for reporters to learn what happened.

          • cestusdei

            On the contrary, this is a minor dispute from a parking lot in FARGO. So why is it news? There are no pogroms in Fargo. It is news because…the Left (you) make it news and use it to push an agenda (yours). Already they are calling for “hate speech” laws, which we know is code for “stifle and punish conservative speech.” All based on one or a few isolated incidents. How about the Somali from Fargo who knifed a bunch of people in St. Cloud, can I blame them for that and use it against them? This is McCarthyism of the Left and don’t think many of us don’t notice.

          • // stifle and punish conservative speech.”

            Well at least you confirm that “conservative speech” is telling people they should be killed because they’re Muslim or Somali.

            It wasn’t always that way.

          • cestusdei

            In Davis, CA a Muslim leader said Jews should be killed and since then Jews have been harassed. On college campuses conservative speech is routinely silenced and speakers are physically attacked by your side. Liberals can call for death and actually injure people and it’s okay. They can even hold up a severed head of the President for laughs. Look in the mirror for hate.

          • // They can even hold up a severed head of the President for laughs. Look in the mirror for hate.

            Well, they can’t without losing their livelihood.

            You know, like this woman you’re defending did.

          • RBHolb

            “Already they are calling for “hate speech” laws . . .”

            Who are “they?”

            The Supreme Court has just (Matal v. Tam, decided on June 19) reaffirmed that “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment. I suppose, in the fullness of things, there are “those” calling for a ban on hate speech, but they should be accorded no more attention than those calling for, say, establishment of a Catholic theocracy in the United States.

          • cestusdei

            Read the Forum. They are the usual suspects. The HRC wants a kangaroo court. 1st amendment? Oh that will just be reinterpreted out of existence.

          • There’s nothing in any of the Forum reporting on this incident mentioning hate crime. The only mention was that CAIR called it a hate crime.

            what is the HRC?

          • cestusdei

            It was in the paper today. CAIR, an organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, always says that.

            The Human Relations Commission.

          • Right, the Forum reported it. So you’re saying the Forum shouldn’t report on the incident … because…..?

          • cestusdei

            Report it as a parking lot dispute or as evidence of some vast right wing conspiracy, or using it to silence speech, or blaming Trump. How it is reported is the key factor. Do you cover every parking lot dispute or road rage incident? Oh and I notice you use censorship to eliminate some of my posts that you don’t like. Easier then answering them I guess.

          • KTN

            “can I blame them for that and use it against them”?
            I’m guessing you already do. But keep on with the rockin indignation, its funny to read your rantings – and a lawyer too, almost unbelievable, what with your adherence to a logical argument.

        • jon

          If you aren’t on social media, and you are fired for something that didn’t happen, then perhaps it would be a good time to speak up about it, or any time you find out about it…

          If I was in the walmart parking lot walking past this, and saw it, would I not form an opinion of this woman?
          If we were living in the historical revisionist paradise where “people knew their neighbors” and “everyone lived in small towns where everyone knew everyone else…”
          Wouldn’t word have gotten out by old school social behaviors (talking to one another).

          People being shunned for socially unacceptable behavior is a feature of society, not a bug. It’s been going on since at least the beginning of civilization, and it will continue to go on for much longer… The fact that computers are involved really doesn’t change anything except that it actually drives that ‘old fashion community’ that people long for until they see it in some form other than gossiping to your neighbors over the hedge… It makes it much harder to fake a story, not easier…

          • Mike

            You’re not at all addressing the fact that people often prefer to believe bad things, even falsely, than to believe something that runs counter to their preconceived beliefs and opinions. Yours is a very naive view: that bad people will be more easily sanctioned socially through social media.

            No doubt that will be true sometimes (like in this case). I’m pointing out that there’s a very dark side to all of this, as evidenced by the Twitter discrepancy I mentioned above. You don’t have to believe it, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

          • If the point is too many people are stupid about what they read on the Internet, that seems undeniable.

            But that’s not anything new. That’s how tabloid newspapers started and how the most influential media empire in the world was created (Fox).

            But so what? There are going to be people who believe we never landed on the moon, Sandy Hook never happened, and 9/11 was an inside job.

            Does social media have the ability to amplify incorrect information? Sure. It also has the unprecedented ability to reveal fakery.

            I doubt the accounting firm is going to fire this woman without hearing her side of the story, no matter what they might be telling the Forum.

            Hell, this country used to deny jobs to people for far less.

            Oh, wait, it still does.

          • cestusdei

            Interesting, you put tabloid and Fox in the same sentence. Gee, I wonder why? This is why many of us don’t believe you anymore. Your bias is so ingrained even you don’t seem to notice. This country denied Catholics jobs and in fact Sen. Sanders recently used a mans religion to attack him for an office at the OMB. Guess some people are more equal then others.

          • // Interesting, you put tabloid and Fox in the same sentence. Gee, I wonder why

            Because Ruppert Murdoch made his fortune in London tabloids, then the NY Post, and then bought Fox and then started FoxNews. That’s the lineage.

            //This is why many of us don’t believe you anymore. Your bias is so ingrained even you don’t seem to notice.

            But your ignorance about the relationship between tabloids and Fox and the commonality of Rupe Murdoch shows that your problem actually isnt’ my bias, it’s your disinterest in being informed properly.

            You say you “wonder why” I put them both together but you really don’t because that suggests a natural curiosity, which you chose to ignore so you could go ahead with what you already believed to be true.

            The reason people “don’t believe” me anymore is because they’re much more comfortable in the simple life of ignorance.

            This is the part where you complain because someone called you ignorant and tell me this is why Trump got elected.

          • cestusdei

            In my opinion you are the tabloid. Fox news is not. They actually have both sides on and give them a chance. What you are calling informed I call being indoctrinated. Fox is the only semi conservative platform out there and you are so threatened that you can’t not insult them, yes double negative.

            Ignorance? How about just saying “deplorable.” Yes insult those you disagree with. You are guilty of hate speech lol. You hate us. You sneer at those who aren’t part of your elites. And so yes, if you insult people they don’t vote for you. You are such a moron you don’t get that. You are so full of contempt for others that you can’t see that YOU are the hater. You are just like this women whom you have focused on. She is you, a mirror image. This is the part where you dismiss me as just another hick. Btw, I’m actually a lawyer so calling me ignorant and uneducated might now work very well.

          • // tw, I’m actually a lawyer s

            No, you’re actually not.

            In the unlikely event that you are, you’re not a particularly good one if you declare you can be punished for not being PC

          • Jerry

            Remember, Michelle Bachmann is a lawyer.

          • cestusdei

            You are just frustrated because you want to believe that I am some half-wit deplorable. Instead I have 3 degrees and 2 are post graduate. The Left, that’s you, prefers to pretend you are smart and the rest of us are morons. Guess what, because I don’t agree with you does not mean I am stupid or uneducated. But I guess insulting others is easier then refuting what they say eh?

          • That’s true. All we have to go on is available evidence.

          • jon

            So videos and pictures make it harder to lie, social media is a platform for sharing pictures and videos.

            So with it being harder to lie than any time in history prior to this (though still possible, just like every time in history prior to this) we blame social media for what has been going on for centuries…

            So social media is improving the “slippery slope” that society hasn’t been sliding down this whole time… and we are shouting that the sky is falling… makes sense.

    • Maybe. On the other hand, if the surveillance society forces a change in behavior in which people behave a little more courteously toward each other to prevent incidents from escalating, the collateral damage on getting there might be well worth it.

      • Mike

        That’s nearly the same as the argument that says, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from surveillance, which is used as a lazy justification for eviscerating the 4th Amendment. Personally, I like *all* my civil liberties and want to keep them.

        You might feel differently about the collateral damage if that turned out to be you.

        • //Personally, I like *all* my civil liberties and want to keep them.

          Yeah, except for the fact is you don’t have a civil liberty to assault anyone.

          When you’re in public, there’s never been any interpretation of the Constitution that says you have an expectation of privacy.

          So, from the aspect, it really has nothing to do with your analogy because those actually ARE invoked in areas where there’s a legitimate claim of a constitutional violation.

          If you want protection from consequences of poor behavior, there’s really only one logical way to claim it: don’t behave poorly.

          • Mike

            I’m simply drawing parallels between the arguments. You’re saying the surveillance state isn’t all bad if it gives us more opportunities to shame people (some of whom are truly toxic, no doubt). Others say the surveillance state isn’t all bad because even in private I shouldn’t be doing things that those others disapprove of.

            Either way, it’s a net increase to the power of the mob (or the government), not to mention the vastly increased potential for slander or falsification that, because of its scale, could lead to vigilantism.

            See it as a positive if you like. Many certainly do. I’m not among them.

          • Jay T. Berken

            (or the government)

            What are you talking about. Most camera’s are for private consumption (e.g. Walmart). “Government” camera’s are in public right-of-ways and mostly used for traffic, and at least in Scott County, they do not record.

          • Mike

            The Snowden revelations from several years ago proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NSA, local law enforcement, and others I’m sure we don’t know about are scooping up all sorts of data from smartphones, internet traffic, etc. “Collect it all” has long been their motto.

            In the 21st century, the 4th Amendment is dead.

            Did you ever hear of Stingray?
            https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them

          • Ah, OK, now we’re in the tall weeds. The government surveillance has nothing to do with people taking videos in public of other people behaving badly.

          • Mike

            Agreed, except that of course the government is collecting virtually everything – in violation of the 4th Amendment.

          • That’s an entirely different issue that really has nothing to do with three Somali women who had the means to capture what would previously be dismissed without evidence because they’re “those people”.

            That’s the great part about video. It gives a voice to people who have historically been denied one.

          • // . You’re saying the surveillance state isn’t all bad if it gives us more opportunities to shame people (some of whom are truly toxic, no doubt).

            The very best way to characterize what I’m saying is to accurately quote what I’m saying.

            The surveillance STATE is a matter of government surveillance. People documenting their lives in public is not the surveillance state and the two shouldn’t be confused.

          • Mike

            A society in which everyone is trained/encouraged to surveil and record everyone else has been the dream of autocrats since time immemorial.

            To the extent that we cheer incidents like the one in question, and reward people for recording and distributing it, that mentality fits hand-in-glove with the aims of the surveillance state.

            They are only superficially different, and not even that when you consider that the government essentially collects all the information.

          • Nobody is cheering the incident. That’s a disingenuous point. Personally, I cheer the power of people to protect themselves and empower themselves to have the freedom of movement without assault.

            The “government” at the moment is taking part in an assault on a class of people so I don’t necessarily see them as partners.

            People don’t have many weapons anymore against the bigots and racists and, frankly, killers who are among us. That they have any at all, I’m sure, disappoints a lot of people. I’m not one of them.

            In the past people like these three women ended up hanging from trees for “crimes” far less severe against a white woman than parking too close to someone. Now they can fight back.

            Good.

            The racists and bigots historically have done their work in darkness. The smartphone has given everyone a light .

            Watch them scurry like cockroaches when it’s turned on.

          • Mike

            “People don’t have many weapons anymore against the bigots and racists and, frankly, killers who are among us. That they have any at all, I’m sure, disappoints a lot of people. I’m not one of them.”

            In general, social media users do cheer the shaming of people they don’t like. This is often defensible when it’s someone in a position of authority, less so when it’s a random person doing something ugly, or worse when it’s simply something others disapprove of.

            I’m not cheering bigotry either, but I get the insinuation, and it’s a low blow for merely pointing out the dangers of the culture of surveillance. But hey – no need for concern as long as someone I don’t like is bearing the brunt of it at the moment. Civil libertarians should all learn to stop worrying and love surveillance.

          • //I’m not cheering bigotry either, but I get the insinuation, and it’s a low blow for merely pointing out the dangers of the culture of surveillance. But hey – no need for concern as long as someone I don’t like is bearing the brunt of it at the moment. Civil libertarians should all learn to stop worrying and love surveillance.

            Again with the apparent assertion you have an expectation of privacy in public.

            If that bothers civil libertarians, they’re not very good civil libertarians.

          • Mike

            No one should have an expectation of privacy in public. On the other hand, no one should expect their every movement and action to be tracked/recorded in public either, but that’s almost where we are at this point.

            Technologically and culturally, there’s a convergence of government surveillance with the social media activity of individuals, which includes unauthorized recording of others.

            The 4th Amendment does not address “privatized” surveillance, whether done by individuals, business, etc. But we still get to ask questions about whether all that surveillance is salutary or not. What is uncontestable is that, however wonderful someone may believe their personal reporting and/or surveillance of others may be, it’s all ending up in the hands of far-removed third parties – government agencies, corporations, and others.

            What we have today through this patchwork system of surveillance is something approaching a digital version of the panopticon, the effects of which were described in detail by French poststructuralist philosopher Michel Foucault decades ago. If you don’t think totalitarianism isn’t part and parcel of such a system, then perhaps you should pick up a copy of “Discipline and Punish” and learn a bit about it.

          • So these three Somali girls are leading us down the road to a totalitarian system?

            I would, by the way, suggest at the moment that while you and Foucault might be correct, there are some other ways to a totalitarian system that some folks with a certain point of view are more than happy to ignore.

            But three black people stand up against a racist and bigot and all of a suddenly their contribution to totalitarianism takes them to DEFCON 1.

          • Mike

            My original point was about the role social media plays in the emerging surveillance state we all live in. That’s not the fault of any average person, but to the extent we buy into it by encouraging the surveillance of others through social media, we are participating in the creation of that state.

            Sometimes it may work to an end we agree with; other times it won’t. However, the powers that be are certain to love it. Why do you think they’re so highly interested in everyone else’s information, while trying to keep private so many of their official actions?

          • Surveillance by definition, however, is the routine observing of people on the possibility of wrongdoing or some other event.

            That rarely exists on social media and certainly is not the situation here any more than if a TV station encourages the surveillance state by the live broadcast of a news event or story.

          • Mike

            Ah yes, clearly one can’t have genuine civil liberties concerns if the parties are occupying the wrong sides of the fence. Whenever that occurs, it’s always racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia instead.

            When the ACLU defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie in 1978, they weren’t defending a principle; it was just because they hate Jews.

          • Sarcasm noted, but poor substitute for logical reasoning.

            Since you DON’T have a right to privacy in a public setting, declaring yourself a civil libertarian arguing for a right that isn’t recognized makes one a poor civil libertarian, imho. Not because it’s the wrong side of the fence, but because it’s inaccurate to suggest there’s a public right to privacy.

            It’s not racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia, either. It’s just ignorance of what are and are not civil liberties.

            Now if they want to argue that they have a RIGHT to be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or any other phobic, I don’t think that’s much in dispute.

          • “A society in which everyone is trained/encouraged to surveil and record
            everyone else has been the dream of autocrats since time immemorial.”

            Been there; done that, in past decades and even long before those. And not just autocrats. Monarchies, communists, capitalists (read: corporations), revolutionaries … heck, pretty much any party in power wanting to maintain their status quo has used surveillance en masse.

            The only advantage offered in today’s world of public surveillance is the quantum leap with efficiency via use of electronics.

    • KTN

      But it goes to character, and her character seems a bit unhinged. This might have been the first time she spewed her vitriol in public, but you can be assured she has thought these things for a long time. Racists don’t just appear – they are cultivated for life.

      This is just another example of the “great disinhibition” of our social order. Because we have a sociopath for a president, now all of his supporters feel empowered to speak like him – without regard to truth, facts, or reality. They can spew their racist bullshit, they can hurl insults at brown skinned people, and on and on, all without any fear of recrimination (well except it seems for this women).

      Good for the firm to can her, it seems like it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person.

    • king harvest

      No civil liberties are in danger since no governmental agency is involved. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. The fired woman was the one being threatening.
      It looks like she reaped what she sowed.

    • BWF

      I think you’re right to be concerned, in general, about this. Where this case is different is that Hensley was caught on tape threatening to kill someone, which is a crime.

      • JamieHX

        I don’t agree with or support what Hensley said, but she was clearly being facetious when she said ‘we’re gonna kill you all…’ or whatever it was. Her demeanor didn’t appear to me to be threatening at all. And those girls/women saying they were afraid is disingenuous at best — I heard them taunting her, and I believe Hensley’s story about what they said too, partly because I’ve been in a couple similar situations,* and have seen others like it.
        *Attacks on heritage/religion/race were not part of the conversation in my “cases”: Two different times, finding the only available handicapped parking spots occupied by vehicles not displaying permits. In one case I asked two adult (probably) Somali women if they knew they needed a permit to park there; in the other, it was a group of what looked to me like Somali teenagers, and I asked them where their permit was. Both times, they tore into me like I was the devil incarnate.

        • She’s such a kidder, that one.

          • JamieHX

            There’s a way a person says something in a threatening manner, and a way that they don’t.

        • RBHolb

          “Attacks on heritage/religion/race were not part of the conversation in my ‘cases'” Of course, it’s noted that those whom you confronted “looked like” or were “probably” Somali. Have you ever confronted a non-Somali about parking in a handicapped spot?

          “[S]he was clearly being facetious . . .” Sure, nothing is funnier that getting in a stranger’s face and saying you’re going to kill them all, or have them all deported.

          • JamieHX

            Of course I have confronted non-Somali people about illegally parking in handicapped spaces. You think I’m just out looking for Somalis doing it? What a ridiculous notion.

    • christine harrity

      I agree with you 100% except to state that we are going to kill you.. Repeatedly is considered terrorist threats. Wonder who the “WE” are???

  • gus

    Who hasn’t had someone park like this? What you do is get in the passenger side and slide over. What you don’t do is react the way this women did, venting her hatred. I wish people like Hensley could be deported to Russia, say.

    • Well, one of the problems is the width of some vehicles, like certain pickup trucks. They barely fit between the lines and it’s impossible to open their door without hitting someone’s car and even then, a person probably couldn’t get in.

      In an idea world, people who need to drive large vehicles should maybe park farther away from the store entrance where it’s not likely they’d need to encroach in someone else’s space.

      But boy, if there’s on thing that sets people off, it’s encroaching on space.

      • jon

        Sliding over has gotten more difficult too… gone are the bench seats of yesteryear, and the bucket seats and wraparound interiors that make moving from a passenger seat to a driver seat a feat of acrobatics…

    • crystals

      This happened to me 20 minutes ago. I climbed across the front seat (in a dress) and managed to not tell the person with the Wisconsin plates who boxed me in that we’re going to send them all back to where they came from.

      It really isn’t that hard to be decent.

      • jon

        WI plates… maybe we should consider sending them back where they came from 😉

        • Veronica

          I hear Wisconsin is “open for business”.

  • AL287

    I think this is a powerful lesson on practicing the Golden Rule but we seemed to have tossed that philosophy with rise of Facebook, You Tube, etc.

    Because everything nowadays is instantaneous i.e. online purchases, news reports, etc. our tempers are too. Patience and tolerance have flown out the window.

    If someone makes a request or gives a direction, it has to be acted on in a split second or something like this ensues.

    I’ve taught Somalis in CNA classes and they are not hot tempered. They are generally quiet and reserved and comply with requests calmly. However, they will defend themselves if given an angry challenge like these women.

    I believe the women when they say they offered to pull out of their slot so the woman could enter her car.

    Had the woman just walked to the front of her car and let them pull their car out like they offered, none of this would have happened. And she would still have her job.

    Instead, she chose to hurl insults at the other women.

    Not exactly the way to gain friends and influence enemies.

    We would all do well to be more patient and suppress the urge to hurry from one activity to the next willy nilly.

    • JamieHX

      >> “I’ve taught Somalis in CNA classes and they are not hot tempered. They are generally quiet and reserved and comply with requests calmly.” <<
      My experience is very different from yours. Maybe quiet and reserved is what you can expect from most people in a classroom. But in a different situation, say waiting in line at Starbucks and saying "Excuse me, I'm next" when the guy tries to cut in front of you, and he lets out a string of obscenities, including "you can't talk to me, woman." That and other experiences I've had give me a very different impression.

  • Postal Customer

    Not to worry. I’m sure that a position in Trump’s cabinet awaits. Secretary of Freedom! That has a nice ring.

    And if not that, there’s always a book deal, plus unlimited appearances on Hannity and Fox & Fiends.

  • cestusdei

    That’s the Left. Take a parking lot argument and make it a federal case. My religion, Catholicism, gets insulted and hated all the time. Can I put some of you in jail for that or invoke hate speech laws to punish you? People need to grow a thicker skin and have some perspective. Free speech is just that or it isn’t free. If we fired every Muslim who said something hateful about Jews, Israel, Christians, Trump etc. how many of them would still have jobs? How about we agree to let words be words and not create a totalitarian regime? Btw, after 8 years of Obama I think he is the cause of this. When you muzzle people you create more anger and division. Thanks Barrack.

    • jon

      Are you serious?

      You are complaining about how terribly treated you are as a catholic, the religion that is viewed second most favorably in the country (jews took the number one spot) to that to islam the least favorably viewed religion in the country?

      Also “we are going to kill all of you!” while technically words also usually qualifies as “terroristic threats” which is criminal.

      Lastly… this is news cut… this is a place where people know what “Free speech” as defined in the first amendment means… and it doesn’t prevent you from being fired from a job, it only prevents the government from regulating your speech, private citizens can still point out that what you are saying is offensive, and refuse to be associated with you because of it.

      Pew study on more and least favorably viewed religions:
      http://www.pewforum.org/2017/02/15/americans-express-increasingly-warm-feelings-toward-religious-groups/

      • cestusdei

        How many movies and tv programs portray Catholicism positively vs. negatively? Which religion routinely has leaders that call for death and destruction? Look up Davis, CA and it’s mosque.

        It used to be that your speech offsite and your opinions were your own. You would not be fired for disagreement. But in our new totalitarian regime you can be punished for not being pc. Why do you think so many voted for Trump? They are sick and tired of this garbage.

        • // But in our new totalitarian regime you can be punished for not being pc.

          Name one.

          • jon

            Sean Spicer.
            Fired* by a “new totalitarian regime” (new as of Jan.) at least in part because of his statements on the holocaust.

            Though some how I don’t think that is the new totalitarian regime he is pushing towards.

            *well forced out…

          • crystals
          • RBHolb

            How about that? I thought he quit several weeks after his Holocaust statements because he didn’t approve of the hiring of Scaramucci.

          • cestusdei

            Ask the former fire chief of Atlanta or Brandon Eich.

    • // People need to grow a thicker skin

      Well, we’re about three months away from the annual outrage because someone said “Happy Holidays”, so it’s good to hear that there’s some hope that they’ll get over their victimization by then.

      • cestusdei

        Yeah, just like in the Fall on Leftist campuses across the land young liberals will be looking for someone to be outraged at. I mean how dare someone trigger them with a contrary opinion. Poor little Leftists, they need milk and cookies…while they riot and burn stuff.

        • jon

          Aren’t you here making your comments, expressing yourself because people hold a different set of opinions that you find upsetting?

          • cestusdei

            I am just pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards, which upsets them. And notice some of my posts have disappeared. The Left does that while decrying censorship lol.

          • Some of your posts have disappeared because you’re new here and don’t know the basic rules (many of your posts were untouched b/c we gave you a break for being new). Lots of posts disappear here of all political stripes. That’s why the comments section of NewsCut is one of the few worth reading. Google “NewsCut” and “comments” and you’ll probably find the appropriate post.

            You can ask any regular here and they’ll tell you that there’s a place here for everybody but the uncivil.

            My guess, though, is you’ll be gone soon once you get it all out of your system on this one post and run out of ways to same the same thing. People are accustomed to just going all AM talk radio in comments but eventually they run out of gas and have to actually talk to people like normal folks. Fairly often, they find they have an inability to do much more than howl at the moon and say how much the left or right stink.

            That’s when they either stay and talk like adults would face to face or leave to vomit on the next Internet site.

            Nothing we haven’t seen before.

    • Veronica

      Catholicism gets insulted and hated? I was born and raised Catholic, and your assertion is wholly without merit. Or are you “feeling” under attack because it’s come to light that there’s a history of child rape and cover-ups that’s systemic?

      • cestusdei

        Ah hate speech! Call the PC police. You have offended me and that’s a hate crime. To jail with you. You ain’t much of a Catholic, which is why you don’t suffer and hate. As for child rape, which religion allows marriage at the age of nine? I guess you don’t care about certain children.

        • // You have offended me and that’s a hate crime

          You’re confusing hate crimes with hate speech.

          A hate CRIME is someone being killed, for example, for being gay. A lynching, for example, would also be a hate crime.

          Hate speech is protected speech EXCEPT — generally speaking — when it leads to an imminent unlawful action.

          The boorish behavior you’re advocatng is entirely legal as evidenced by the Westboro Baptist Church. And it’s worth noting that when the Supreme Court said burning a cross is free speech . It was a Saint Paul case in which the teenager was represented by a “liberal”, by the way.

          In that case, the Supreme Court said, ““The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.

          You may disagree with that and call it PC, of course, but you’d have to take it up with Antonin Scalia, because he’s the one who wrote it.

          • cestusdei

            No, you are just plain confused. All crime is hate crime at some level. I don’t think that one persons blood is more valuable then anothers. The whole concept is divisive, which is it’s intention. Hate speech is a subspecies and is used as a club by the Left to silence speech they don’t like.

            Your boorish behavior is exemplified on campuses across the land where people lose their jobs for saying something the Left doesn’t like. I am well aware of “fighting words.” However, the issue is far more often when someone disagrees with “gay” marriage and ends up suffering for it. Why do you think Trump’s numbers went up whenever he said something un-pc? People are tired of being muzzled by your side. I believe in free speech for everyone. I do note however that in the recent Davis, CA case the Left does not seem concerned. Islam gets a pass.

        • Veronica

          Um. I care about all kids. And you’re right—I think the Church has been hopelessly broken. I keep waiting for a return to Liberation Theology.

          My kids are baptized Catholic. I was married at a full mass and renewed my vows with the priest that officiated my wedding. I have a degree from a foremost Catholic university and took a bonkers amount of theology courses.

          Want to have a real conversation about Catholic theology? Let’s go for it! It’ll be fun!

          • cestusdei

            More hate speech! You are not allowed to say anything offensive, it’s illegal.

            Liberation theology is long dead. I prefer Catholic theology. I think the problem is you went to a school that pretends to be Catholic where they taught you heresy. There are a lot of those. We have this thing called a “catechism.” Use it. but this is why you don’t suffer for the Catholic faith, you don’t have it. Go pray in front of an abortion clinic and you will get some real hate speech directed at you.

    • crystals

      Get back to me when:
      1) hate crimes against Catholics spike;
      2) the leader of our country campaigns on stoking fears of Catholics and Radical Catholicism;
      3) laws are passed that ban Catholics from entering our country.

      Smooches,
      A fellow Catholic who is tired of the BS, has a thick skin, and knows how to spell Barack Obama’s name correctly

      • cestusdei

        There are “hate crimes”, which are really just crimes, against Catholics now. Some of us remember when Kennedy ran how many of you bashed him for being Catholic, and he wasn’t even a very good one. But if you look back in the 19th century you will find there were riots, church arsons, and murders of Catholics. Anti-Catholicism is the only acceptable prejudice in America.

        Obama did precisely that. Some of us remember his “clinging to guns and bibles” remarks. For 8 years he waged war on Christians, even nuns.

        If the Catholic Church were openly calling for jihad against the US then travel bans would be a good thing. Although the travel ban is for nations that have no means of telling us who these immigrants really are. Can I come stay at your house? No questions asked?

        I’ll get it right. It’s Hussein Obama. You aren’t tired of BS, you are swimming in it.

        • RBHolb

          “For 8 years he waged war on Christians, even nuns.”

          Remember how four nuns were murdered in El Salvador on the orders of the military, and the Reagan administration did nothing? Remember how they even went so far as to make excuses for the murder?

          Did anything comparable happen in the Obama administration? Comments that you found insulting don’t count.

          PS I hate to relitigate the the Schism of 1054 or the Reformation, but Catholics are not the only Christians out there.

          • cestusdei

            Reagan didn’t kill them. Remember how an atheist in Oregon shot students who said they believed in God and let the others go?

            We are talking about speech. I guess only certain people count. Evangelical Christians don’t count for you either.

          • We’re going to go down the list of religion based killing in history?

            What’s that got to do with Fargo?

          • RBHolb

            “We are talking about speech.”

            Who’s this “we,” pal? You were talking about “waging war,” and shootings (done by Obama?), which sounds like a heck of a lot more than speech.

            Really, it’s getting harder and harder to follow your arguments. If being a member of the bar for the last *cough* years has taught me anything, it’s to be careful throwing words around.

          • jon

            Wait, Reagan didn’t kill people (well a particular group of nuns)… but you have an example of Obama ALSO not killing people!

            That’s amazing!!!! and pretty useless….

            Also… fact check… if it’s the same Oregon shooting then some of those killed were pagans, Jews, and agnostics… not that the facts matter you’ve made up your mind…

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/04/did-the-oregon-shooter-actually-target-christians-that-doesnt-appear-to-be-the-case/

            (I know you’ll dismiss that as an atheist web page, but if you follow the links they provide (citing sources… you can try it yourself) there is plenty of supporting information.)

        • crystals
        • // There are “hate crimes”, which are really just crimes, against Catholics now.

          Name one.

          // remarks. For 8 years he waged war on Christians, even nuns.

          Like that time he sung “Amazing Grace”?

          • cestusdei

            In Mexico just this week a feminist group placed a bomb at the bishops conference.

            “December 05, 2016: A total of 69 people were victims of 59 hate-crime offenses motivated
            by anti-Catholic bias in the US in 2015, according to a report recently
            issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” And those are just the ones reported.

            Or the time he talked about clinging to their bibles and guns? Obama was not noted for his faith. But he was noted for attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor.

        • seedhub

          Well, here’s part of the problem. Obama’s actual quote was, “they cling to guns or religion,” not “they cling to guns or the Bible.” You somehow decided that Obama was referring only to Bible-based religions, but more than that, only to your Bible-based religion. It’s really easy to feel persecuted when you actively seek persecution. Probably unavoidable.

          Historically, the greatest bias Catholics have faced in this country came from Protestants; that has largely evaporated in the last thirty years or so. Current criticisms are mostly negative reactions to the Church’s subjugation of women, their mishandling (to use a mild word) of more than 3,000 sexual abuse cases, and their continued opposition to equal rights for homosexuals.

          As a practicing Catholic myself (albeit one more aligned with Jesuits than, say, the Legionaries) I find that completely appropriate. The Catholic Church should be challenged and criticized. If the Church is to thrive, it should have to defend teachings — and actions — that appear very much contrary to Jesus’ greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

          If it can’t withstand even that much scrutiny, it’s not worth defending.

  • bpost

    FYI–according to the Fargo Forum and the Fargo Police Department facebook page,
    there has been a mutual exchange of apologies and forgiveness between the participants in this incident.
    Maybe there are glimmers of hope. . .