All posts in the topic Hate crime at U Otter Stop?

It's all over Facebook and the blogosphere. Allegedly two men and a
woman were attacked outside this Central Ave bar while the bouncer
looked on. According to at least one source the women had her leg
broken, in the attack the assailants were screaming faggot and n-----
r as they beat them up. I wonder if the Strib has any word of this
attack? I've found nothing in the usual media, only the blog
accounts.  In one such account they said leaders of the gay community
were being contacted, and indeed a friend of mine who is one of the
leaders of Standing on the Side of Love is who first clued me in on
what had happened.

Does anyone have any further information on this incident? In light
of the passage of the Federal Hate Crimes bill just recently, I would
have thought someone might be covering this story and indeed someone
may be.

If anyone has any further confirmation on this, please let me know.
This is exactly the sort of thing we need to confront head on.

Jessica Wicks
Sheridan, NE Mpls
    

My colleagues at www.TheColu.mn, a brand new LGBT issues blog, have spoken with
the victims, the owner of the Otter Stop and the police regarding the violence
on early Monday morning and will have a full report early Wednesday morning.

I think an important note about what happened early Monday morning is that none
of the victims in this attack identified as LGBT. They are certainly allies, at
least from those I have spoken with. But they were targeted with anti-gay slurs
just before being attacked without provocation, according to the victims.

The story reminds me of the man attacked on Washington Ave last year after
meeting friends at the Minneapolis Eagle. He was straight but two workers on
the 35W bridge rebuild didn't bother to ask him that before beating him while
shouting anti-gay slurs.

Laws against anti-LGBT violence and discrimination are to benefit us all.
Anyone can be targeted because of a perceived sexual orientation or gender
identity.

From my understanding, and I have not spoken with the owner personally, but the
owner of the U Otter Stop Inn was mortified to learn that any of her clientele
could behave in such a manner.

Andy Birkey
Longfellow
    

As I said, I haven't spoken to her personally, so I do not know what action --
if any -- she intends to take. "Mortified" is my own word, not hers. It's an
adjective I used to describe my understanding of her reaction when my colleague
spoke with her about the violence that occurred on the property on which her
establishment sits.

I was simply passing along the fact that she expressed deep concern.

I would certainly hope that if the individuals are identified that she would
indeed ban them from her premises. But, to my knowledge, no one has yet been
arrested.

Andy Birkey
Longfellow
    

My mistake.  A report was made but the address given was the hospital.  The
case is under investigation.
    

I'm a reporter with Minnesota Public Radio. I'm interested in talking with
people who were victims of the incident, any witnesses, and anyone involved in
starting a boycott against the bar. I can be reached at: 651-290-1021. I'm
working on the story for today and can be reached until 7pm. If anyone involved
would have time to give me a call today, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Madeleine Baran
Uptown Minneapolis
    

At 10:09 AM -0600 12/9/09, Jessica Wicks wrote:
>
>Oh, one other minor correction. The bar is located on a SE address on
>Central. Wouldn't that make it Southeast Mpls rather than Northeast
>Mpls? I've not lived here long enough to know the finer distinctions.
>
Connie here: There are some very persnickity people in parts of
Minneapolis's bureaucracy, and it is to them that we owe the
ultra-correct "Central Ave. SE" on the U Otter Stop Inn address.
Until several years ago, Central Ave.--of which Minneapolis only has
one and everyone knew where it was, like Cedar Ave.--never carried a
Northeast or Southeast designator. But, after hip, non-resident
marketers began to blur the line between Northeast and Southeast
Minneapolis in order to hype the joys of the new, "urban chic
Northeast"(much of which is actually in Southeast), those persnickity
types began to enforce the distinction again in a kind of reaction to
slickster ignorance.

Everything on the East Side of Minneapolis that is south of East
Hennepin Avenue is Southeast  Minneapolis. Everything north of East
Hennepin Avenue is Northeast. East Hennepin Avenue is the part of
Hennepin Avenue that is on the East Side of the river. Its name is
NOT "Hennepin Ave. East," which sounds sexier but has no historical,
cultural or official validity. Just marketing hype created by people
who don't know Minneapolis.

So the U Otter Stop Inn is just south of East Hennepin Ave. and thus
has a Southeast address.

However, we do see absurdities where businesses deny their locational
identity: the new Cobalt condo complex that also houses the East Side
Lund's supermarket has a University Avenue SE address, but is
marketed as being in NE like the commercial "artsy" node around 13th
Ave. NE and all of what was "Olde St. Anthony." Or, we see things
like a Housing section of the Star Tribune this weekend that had an
in-house advertising person touting the "chic" Northeast as having
been the 1850s village/town/city of St. Anthony. No. St. Anthony was
the original town built along the East Side of the river at the Falls
but which extended up and down--all the way down through what they
called "Lower Town" (Dinkytown and the U of M knoll) to today's Oak
Street Southeast. About half of St. Anthony was Upper Town, all that
north of the dividing line--which was different then (it was Central
Ave., aka Bay St.) and only that northern part became "Northeast"
Minneapolis. Whew.

It's that intentionally ignorant and inexact marketing strategy that
confuses Jessica and others unnecessarily. Hail to those sticklers
for exactitude in fact and history, in the city's street-naming and
address-assigning bureaucracy!! They know precisely where everything
is.

Connie Sullivan
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis
--
    

The story did describe racial and homosexual epithets, so I am imagine
there is some basis for the hate crime descriptor; it is a decision
for the county attorney to make when he prosecutes.

I used to spend several hours, two or three days a week in dives like
this, then a little over 20 years ago I quit smoking and stopped
stopping in. Some of the places were pretty wholesome environments,
apart from the binge drinking and smoking, with a decent menu and/or
friendly folks, but a very few were dangerous hangouts for criminals.
I imagine we'll find out if U Otter Stop Inn is the former or the
latter in short order; it can't be all that difficult a case for
police to investigate from what I've read, and a boycott seems
premature. I guess I'm in Jeff's camp and might stop in for a beer and
my own investigation.

I really like this area of town and, although I learned about the East
Hennepin divide years ago, think of it as a Northeast-Southeast nexus
in which the various cultures and sub-cultures of each blur and
occasionally clash. Unless that hard drinking Nordeast softball team
excursion subculture of the MPD is involved, I guess there'll be
suspects in custody before long.


Bill Kahn
PPERR Nbrhd, Minneapolis, MN, USA, Earth, Sol Syst., Milky Way, the
multiverse
<email obscured>
    

My mistake. I googled the bar before the links that both Ron and Bill
provided to the MN Daily story that gave no detail at all of what was
said for some reason, appeared; I read them elsewhere, I guess. Don't
have any reason to believe the other accounts were not accurate,
though. Perhaps the Daily reporter didn't want to sully the U's rep as
the thugs were wearing U attire.

On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Bill Kahn wrote:

> The story did describe racial and homosexual epithets,

Bill Kahn
PPERR Nbrhd, Minneapolis, MN, USA, Earth, Sol Syst., Milky Way, the
multiverse
<email obscured>
    

"The *U Daily *story does not characterize this fight as a hate crime...".
They also characterize it as a "brawl", which implies that both parties were
fighting, while it was actually an assault.  Typical 'quality' of Daily
reporting.

There also seem to be several, conflicting statements from the bar owner:

"Denise Freeman, the owner of the U Otter Stop Inn said she is appalled that
this would happen on her property and defended her staff.
Freeman said she doesn’t employ a bouncer but instead has a friend at the door
who checks identification. She says that the bartender “heard a ruckus and
checked out the back door. By that time, the fight had been broken up and
police were pulling up.”

"A bar employee who had been checking IDs (the bar officially has no bouncer, U
Otter Spot Inn owner Denise Freeman said) eventually led the second assailant
away from the fray."

"U Otter Stop Inn employees reported that they first learned of the scuffle
outside the bar when police arrived, owner Denise Freeman said."

So did someone from the bar staff lead one assailant away, or did the bar staff
first learn of the assault later, when police arrived?  And why lead an
assailant away, instead of holding them until police arrive?

Was the person from the bar a bouncer, a bar employee checking IDs, or a friend
of the owner checking IDs?  Sounds like some possible fiddling with wage & hour
regulations here.

Does this bar commonly have people hanging out in front offering to sell drugs
to patrons as they enter?  Commonly enough that the bouncer/employee/friend can
say "I know this guy"?  So is this what is known as a 'problem property'?
    

Thank you Brian for filling in some more of the story. In my original
post I mentioned I had heard some talk on the internet of a possible
boycott, which is why I came here to ask for answers. As it turns
out, there was a great deal of input to suggest that while the
actions of one individual seem to be suspect, there was little reason
to believe a boycott would be appropriate. I wanted to share that
yesterday, but my two posts had been used already.  In fairness to
any community leaders that might be looking at this, I'm inclined to
believe they likewise are gathering facts rather than just jumping in
blind. I've shared my opinions on this with some of those folks also.

My partner and I don't do bars at all actually. What concerned me
here was the fact that whether it will be classified a hate crime,
clearly some people were attacked and hate speech was used. According
to news articles one person did intervene early on, but apparently
police were not called. I've been out and about and even here in our
fine city I was recently harassed on our city streets. This incident
follows a lesbian who was attacked in uptown last year I think it was.

Anyway, talk, especially on the internet is cheap, and that is why I
asked the questions. I'm sort of inclined to believe that if any
action were to take place, it would be more like a vigil or public
awareness sort of campaign around hate crimes themselves. Sadly with
the political polarization our society is experiencing, hate crimes
are on the rise, and they need to be confronted.

Thanks again Brian for helping clear some of the air around this
sordid event.

Jessica Wicks
Sheridan, NE Mpls
(who grew up as a transgender and gay boy stereotypically feminine in
the fifties and was at the brunt of this kind of bullying a lot in
East Texas.)
    

On Dec 10, 2009, at 2:12 PM, <email obscured> wrote:

> I find the Otter to be BETTER than most of our gay bars as my
> partner, our friends, and I are accepted while we are openly being
> ourselves while at the same time not relegated to an environment
> that is cliche, stereotypical, and set apart from dominant
> society.  I just wanted to add my perspective as the Otter is a
> very small establishment and I feel there might be folks who are
> jumping to judgement who are likely not familiar with the
> establishment except for what they know second hand.  What happened
> on the street was terrible, but is not reflective of the Otter
> itself.  In fact, it doesn't surprise me that this occurred on the
> street as from my knowledge of this establishment, they could not
> have gotten away with this behavior inside the Otter.
>