There has been consistent commentary lately, including several letters to the Bay Area News Group, echoing the same point regarding a man’s arrest for eating a sandwich on a BART platform.

Each notes that the officer asked the BART patron to stop eating and that he refused and became belligerent, which forced the officer to cite him.  On the surface, this seems entirely reasonable. Letter-writers have repeatedly said: “Follow the rules; it’s not fair to other patrons; it’s not discrimination.”

Is it possible that this mainstream view is the result of privilege?  Consider that if you cannot see an alternative view, a legitimate alternative view, we may be in trouble.

For just one moment, consider a different perspective: Imagine that you have seen others eating on BART, let’s say scores of others. It is commonly acknowledged that it is a “daily occurrence.” Imagine, further, that you have never seen anyone so much as addressed, let alone detained or arrested, for doing so.

Imagine that you are a young black man and that you have the strange idea that black men are disproportionately singled out for police enforcement.  Imagine, finally, that immediately prior to your detention, you had seen several people eating and/or drinking on the same platform without repercussion, and that the officer may have walked past several and to you.

In such circumstance, might you feel put upon or unfairly treated by your detention? Might you object to being detained for such a minor offense, especially when it is an otherwise daily occurrence. Is it possible that the inability to see this is the result of privilege? Whether that privilege is based on race, gender and/or class.

Just a few short years ago, few would imagine that an officer would fatally shoot an unarmed black man who is running away in the context of a simple traffic stop. Or that an officer would shoot and kill an unarmed black man on the BART platform while he was lying face down and handcuffed. Or shoot an unarmed black man in his own home for . . . being in his own home. Try not to go numb or withdraw. For this is the context in which many must operate.

The point is that there are other rational perspectives, or reasons, that drive peoples’ behavior, and that those perspectives are based not only on historical but ongoing unequal treatment of different groups in society.  You do not have to agree with the perspective, but people are acting as though there is no other valid position.

Most importantly, the failure to perceive other points of view may point to a far deeper issue.  That is the consequence of great inequality in society, which is setting us apart — not just racially, economically and geographically, but politically as well.

Most troubling is that this narrowing of viewpoint occurs without the need for malice or hostile intent of any kind, and even among those with good intentions. It is the natural result of separation.

If we do not understand the larger societal issues driving these seemingly “simple lawbreaking” occurrences, we will not be equipped to address them, and will have to build ever more jails — for the sandwich eaters.

Phil Rapier is a writer, aspiring musician and attorney in Oakland.