The police were called on Sterling because he allegedly threatened someone with his illegal gun, not because he was selling CDs.

He had the shopkeeper's permission to be there and had been doing so in the open for some time.

His "side hustle" had nothing to do with the event, as far as we know now.

Illegal, untaxed cigarettes and CDs made with no adherence to copyrights. Yeah.

It's called "guerilla capitalism". And if corporations are people, people should be able to be corporations and sell whatever they want. I mean, that's what Republicrats want anyway, right? If the EPA is "draining the lifeblood from corporations" so that companies can do whatever they want with no regulations. Let's just ditch ALL the rules and have a wild-west marketplace where anything goes and anyone can sell anything.

Except sex. Can't sell sex. We have to exert some sort of undiscussed morality via the legal structure somehow. Or drugs, no selling drugs either, because more morality (or profit for the authorities) (and keeping certain populations in line).

ahem

@1 Exactly!

It's not selling CDs that drew the attention of law enforcement, but the person who called 911 to report Mr. Sterling for menacing them with a gun. I guarantee that if an Uber driver illegally taking people to the airport started threatening his passengers with a gun, the cops would show up to deal with that too.

@ Heidi Groover - I can see why it's tempting to shoehorn this event into the preexisting narrative, but when the facts and the narrative are in conflict, a reporter should have the sense to let the narrative give way to the facts.

@1 - First of all, you don't address Eric Garner, who was approached for selling cigarettes. Second, you are ignoring the overall point: there is a double standard around "side-hustles" and the distinction is race/class based..

Lets not forget about the numerous assault cases perpetrated by Uber drivers. While these individuals are responsible for their behavior, how is Uber not partially responsible for failing to properly screen individuals operating under their business model?

@6 what's your point... the CEO of Black People shares some of the blame?

Raindrop...just shut up.

For decent folks around who aren't just trolling, the issue is that the "hustler" label tilts the interaction step by step. It stacks on with the fact of being a black man obviously. He is more likely to get into an altercation with somebody questioning his copyright law compliance, more likely to be seen as aggressive, more likely to get the cops called on him, more likely to have the cops come in scared and violent.

The report was that the 911 call said he was "brandishing" (defined as threatening display) but it was reported he didn't point the gun, I haven't seen whether he pulled it. You can see how this is all more likely to get escalated for a black guy.

Here's an illustrative scenario by which black men end up killed. (Yes I know the details of this killing may not line up with what I've filled in between the lines of the reports I've seen -- please score lots of inside-your-head points.)

- Black man is selling retail commodities, while legally carrying a gun openly.
- Somebody sees him there 'hustling', maybe didn't like his 'attitude', gets into a verbal altercation.
- Person sees black man as 'aggressive thug', gets defensive-aggressive.
- Black man looks obviously at his gun.
- Person sees 'thug with gun', calls cops to report having been threatened with a gun.
- Cops pull in, jump the black man hard so he can't shoot them with his threatening gun.
- Cop who had tackled the black man sees his gun on him within his arm's reach.
- Cop fear of 'aggressive black man with gun' goes critical, cops shoots black man without really thinking.

reports are that a homeless man repeatedly solicited him for money until Sterling flashed his gun and told him to fuck off (this is known as a "Defensive Gun Use" to RKBA Absolutists).

whereupon the homeless man fucked off and called 911.

@5: Why would I address Garner, I was referring to Sterling. They are not the same person, or the same case. I never disputed your second sentence, I was referring to the Sterling case and that singular claim put forward in the article.

@11, Sorry, I misread your comment. I read it in the context of the overall post, and it seemed like you were arguing against the basic point, but I see now that that was not necessarily correct. As Rick Perry once said: "Oops."

@8 The contention of the article is that Mr. Sterling was "killed for being black while selling [...] cheep consumer products" and that he was killed "for bending the law to a far lesser degree than execs at AirBNB & Uber".

You want to tell me he was killed for being black and carrying a firearm (a, to borrow from Dan Savage, very dangerous semi-automatic weapon that should be banned entirely and that I'm entitled to assume he is crazy and dangerous just for carrying) when a white man wouldn't be killed for the same thing, I'll listen to that. That fits with the facts. You want to tell me he was killed for being black and resisting arrest when a white man wouldn't be killed for the same thing, I'll listen to that. That fits with the facts. You want to tell me that a homeless man wouldn't call the cops on a white guy threatening him with a gun, so he was killed for being threatening with a gun and black, I'll listen to that. But if you are going to tell me that it was selling CDs illegally that got him killed, I'm going to call BS. The cops came in response to a 911 call, the call was about him threatening the caller with a gun. Maybe the caller called the police because he was black, but what reason do you have to think the caller wouldn't have made that exact same call if Mr. Sterling were legally getting a petition signed rather than illegally selling CDs when he threatened the caller with his gun? The cops weren't there to hassle him about CD sales, they weren't there about copyright, they were there about a man doing threatening things with a gun - and when police show up to a call about people behaving dangerously with guns, they aren't so worried about the kind of commerce the person is engaged in. Was he killed for being black? I don't know, but its certantly possible. But was he killed for selling CDs? Clearly not.

@7 wow, you really fucking missed the point there. Here you go: Uber is guilty of actual crimes involving assault by their drivers who they failed to vet. They are not prosecuted. Double standard. Uber = white privilege. Make sense now? I'm not sure how you got to me arguing that there is a "CEO" of black people, but I guess we are all guilty of not actually thinking sometimes.