Protesting and the Mall of America

Let's talk about the Mall of America and the prosecution of the Black Lives Matter protesters who showed up for a rally in December, in an attempt to bring awareness to the treatment of African Americans in Minnesota and the country.  Black Lives Matter was passionate, and (for the most part) were reasonably well behaved.  Was there some mild civil disobedience?  Sure, mild, but (in my opinion) the individuals being prosecuted are being portrayed as far more belligerent and out of control than they really were.

I personally like the Mall of America.  I do.  It's far more successful than I ever dreamed.  The Mall of America got, and still gets, a lot of tax payer money and tax breaks.  I think financially, it's been a clear win for the Twin Cities metro, but the Mall doesn't seem to understand citizens feeling a bit of ownership when it comes to tax payer funded venues, and the public wanting to engage in some level of personal freedom in said venues.  MOA acts like that's crossing a line, insisting "it's their way or the highway."  The Mall's attempt to get Black Lives Matter to protest in a parking lot a block away might have been congenial and straight forward, but it came off as dismissive.

MOA has a problem they need to figure out; what is their definition of protesting?  I look at protesting as an expression to bring awareness to an issue, individual, group, business or cause.  That's what the Black Lives Matter protesters were doing.  Isn't that what many events at the Mall, organized and not, are doing?  Isn't that what the Zach Sobiech events were doing?  In December of 2013 and 2014, they had estimated crowds of 5000 and 7200 (respectively) singing Zach's song Clouds.  It's a very worthwhile and noble cause, but the events, when compared to Black Lives Matter, were much larger and just as disruptive to the stores on the east side of the mall, during the ever important Christmas rush.  I had a friend there shopping during this last December's sing-along, and they left because, as they described to me, "a third of the mall was effectively blocked off and it was really loud."  The Mall of America needs to explain if that event is encouraged to take place, why not Black Lives Matter?

I know, those events were coordinated, going through the approved channels, and they weren't polarizing events.  Fine, then how about the fans of the local and visiting sports teams who tend to go to the Mall after the games, particularly Green Bay Packer, Wisconsin Badger and Iowa Hawkeye fans?  Having obnoxious, loud, and (in two personal cases) clearly drunk fans of those teams hooting and hollering throughout MOA, insulting the city and it's people, is probably not something coordinated through the Mall's front office.  I've never seen security address them, or even to respectfully ask them to keep their voices down.  Why is that okay?

Black Lives Matter was not responsible for the Mall of America's prepared response; the Mall was.  They brought in heavy duty security, looking for evil doers, and, is usually the case, they found them.  Congratulations!  If protesters were getting truly belligerent, then you could have walked them to the door.  They were looking to arrest people, so they could make an example of them, and they did!

It would seem proof of your intent to make an example of Black Lives Matter was in the correspondence with the Bloomington City Attorney's office prior to the event, making sure the full extent of the law was ready to be enforced.  Also prior to the protest, the Mall infiltrated the protest groups through fake social media pages and undercover individuals.  At best, a private business and/or law enforcement were spying on a group of people prior to them doing anything wrong; at worst, you were entrapping the individuals by encouraging the protests to take place while you coordinated the prosecutorial response.  The only way you can prove you didn't do the later is to release all the information you have on ALL of the fake social media pages and infiltration operations the Mall of America was participating in, something I think the Mall of America would likely not want to do.

Bloomington City Attorney Sandra Johnson and Mall of America officials, please call off your hounds.  Many people in the city feel as if the only reason you are going after Black Lives Matter is the first word in their name.  If you let this go now, people are going to forget about it, and you've already sent out the warning.  If you intend on continuing the prosecution, then don't act shocked or embarrassed when the defense, and the people of Minnesota, want to see all of the pre-event skeletons stashed away in the closet.

I, and many others in the Twin Cities, are going to be watching the Mall's response to other protests.  I would expect the Mall of America, and the Bloomington City Attorney's office, to treat the eventual 2nd Amendment knucklehead, who tries to walk Nickelodeon Universe with a loaded AK-47, with the same serious tone, prosecuting that individual with the same intent.

Here's the biggest kick.  If the Mall would have been a lot less militaristic in their response, the protest would have happened and then probably would've dispersed peacefully, with many of them picking up a few holiday gifts on their way out the door.