Jump to content

Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging


purplepride95

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s an automatic one game suspension

And he did it during the pledge of allegiance to sit in his chambers……let’s fucking get him!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That's why it's unfortunate. 

No it’s not “unfortunate.” So let me clarify, it’s a steaming pile of dogshit, this ongoing racism.

In my younger years, back when I was young and stupid, I too thought America had move well past its racist past. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 

What angers me now is stupid whites who can’t see that racism is NOT something in the distant past because it never affects them personally. This board is littered with those people. Perhaps you.

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Fried chicken with grits and eggs for breakfast (or lunch or dinner) sounds fan-fucking-tastic.

Throw in a couple of buttermilk biscuits and I'm all up in that shit.

Leftover fried chicken with a waffle, grits and eggs is a legit breakfast, but I have to take a nap afterwards.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Leftover fried chicken with a waffle, grits and eggs is a legit breakfast, but I have to take a nap afterwards.  

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It’s also a bad ass late night drunken stupor meal.  You will be taking a bit more than a nap afterwards though. 

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Needs bacon, too.

 Nap, not coma.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it becomes plain as day that they are trying to exclude black jurors and I think a federal judge would have more backbone to say "that's a stupid explanation, I won't allow it" whereas this idiot nobody of an elected judge says "they said a reason, I guess my hands are tied."


That’s my understanding. They “gave a non-racial reason.” I don’t know what those were, and I don’t know how much leeway is given to the judge in permitting or denying them. That the judge made the comment makes me think it actually was out of his hands, but I could see how he may just have said it to cover his ass while being OK with the outcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2021 at 5:29 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Fried chicken with grits and eggs for breakfast (or lunch or dinner) sounds fan-fucking-tastic.

Throw in a couple of buttermilk biscuits and I'm all up in that shit.


chicken and waffles for breakfast 

Edited by tx 3 putt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

 


That’s my understanding. They “gave a non-racial reason.” I don’t know what those were, and I don’t know how much leeway is given to the judge in permitting or denying them. That the judge made the comment makes me think it actually was out of his hands, but I could see how he may just have said it to cover his ass while being OK with the outcome.

 

It was a bullshit cop out by the judge. He had the ability to rectify it if he wanted to. Judges have considerable discretion there and the judge just chose not to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Watching the trial...prosecution should have this one. 

Don't watch the trial.  It's not relevant.  Watch the jurors.

This case is not about the facts.  It's about the feeling -- that feeling being "yeah, but it's okay to be scared of a black guy and take reasonable steps to protect yourself by being armed and once he comes at you, what are you supposed to do?"  It just takes one juror to feel that.  One.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't watch the trial.  It's not relevant.  Watch the jurors.

This case is not about the facts.  It's about the feeling -- that feeling being "yeah, but it's okay to be scared of a black guy and take reasonable steps to protect yourself by being armed and once he comes at you, what are you supposed to do?"  It just takes one juror to feel that.  One.

I don't feel that way. Take aside the fact the house under construction was open. I get wanting to see the water. I don't think it is cool btw to walk into that situation once or repeatedly. I go back to one of the defendant's sister comments he wasn't out hunting. Jesus are there more shitty people in this trial I can be ashamed of...????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't watch the trial.  It's not relevant.  Watch the jurors.

This case is not about the facts.  It's about the feeling -- that feeling being "yeah, but it's okay to be scared of a black guy and take reasonable steps to protect yourself by being armed and once he comes at you, what are you supposed to do?"  It just takes one juror to feel that.  One.

This one does feel about facts. The Rittenhouse was much more clearly tied in with politics and culture war and everything else that people could write their own prejudices into.  This one is just some assholes chased down and shot a kid. They fry fry fry and I don’t think a jury of Goebbels, Jesse Helms, Calvin Candie, and your 9 favorite Vidor residents would let them off. 

Edited by OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Burnt Orange in OC said:

Why am I just learning that Ahmaud Arbery had taken a gun from one of the men and -- by the definition of the word -- was no longer "unarmed" when he was shot? 

Where do you see that?  McMichael testified that he had grabbed the gun, but didn't take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I thought it was always out there that they were fighting for the gun. Arbery's only instinct at the time was to try and disarm the fucking guy pointing a gun at him for no reason. He has that fucking right. The confrontation should never have occurred in the first place. Guilty As Fuck.

You say "pointing a gun at him for no reason." But Arbery is on video as having just committed a crime.
You say he has the right to fight for the gun. That would be self-defense. Why doesn't the fellow at whom he's pointing the gun then have the same right to self-defense? 

The whole thing's a cluster... I'm mainly just making the point that the media has done a very poor job of explaining that Arbery had a gun when he was shot. I would venture to say 98% of the American public is unaware of that not so minor detail.  
 

  • Fuck You 28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...