Support NeoGAF

[Alavard]

I'm not in favor of hitting people in head with a baseball bat, but:

a) This guy repeatedly hurled abuse at children, and apparently has quite a history of it

b) The schools failed to protect their students

c) The police failed to protect the students, and it sounds like they failed to uphold the law (if the statements about them being on the scene and protecting the pastor are correct)

Given all of that, I'm going to have to empathize with the student (who is also a victim of the pastor's abuse), who lashed out with the bat. Given everyone else who has done wrong in this scenario, I'm going to judge her the least harshly.

 

[Two Words]

Sometimes it's necessary to do the right thing, rather than the legal thing.

I've heard this before. That's all well and good if we all agreed what the right thing is. It sounds to me like you just like the idea of this guy taking a pop to the head. I get it, the guy is a complete shithead. It's nice to see shitheads get their due. But if we're going to proceed with that attitude, then expect to see a lot of people acting like vigilantes in all sorts of ways. That's the thing about these kinds of situations. You can't cherry pick every situation and say "This is okay" and "But this is not okay" due to how you feel about it because it isn't scalable.

 

[Crossing Eden]

There's barely 10 minutes between your post where you claim you have a lawyer for a cousin and the post where you've posted after a 12 minute conversation with your cousin.

It's almost like i was already on the phone while i made that post. And that the conversation was direct and to the point. I suppose you aren't a good detective either.

Even if she picked up straight away, the two or you exchanged no pleasantries and got straight to it, and she watched the whole video from start to finish

Literally yes. Maybe stop projecting on how my family dynamic works?

- even then the time simply does not add up.

Only if we refuse to accept the idea of a no nonsense or slippery slope conversation.

You aren't being truthful.

I don't have a history of lying on this forum and have mentioned her profession multiple times in the past outside of this thread. And have no reason to not be truthful.

At what point did I argue his speech was protected?

Do you believe this constitutes an example of free speech or a failure on the part of the school and authorities to not protect their students from harassment so much so that they felt the need to protect themselves from a dangerous man inciting sexual violence against them?

 

[chadtwo]

Sometimes it's necessary to do the right thing, rather than the legal thing.

Isn't the issue with this principle that it can justify pretty much any action as long as the actor has a genuinely held moral belief in its rightness, whereas the law, even if fallible, applies at least some sort of (theoretical) universality?

Of course, bad laws exist and laws are (and should be) changed constantly. But even the channels and processes by which those laws are changed are themselves embedded in legal institutions with set rules, guidelines, and reinterpretations of legal documents and precedents. I don't think the solution is to simply disobey any preexisting law as long as it conflicts with your personal moral convictions. I'll admit I have a hard time reconciling that with my belief in the rightness of various acts of civil disobedience throughout history, but my understanding is that most people who engage in civil disobedience also accept that as part of their actions, they will face legal punishment.

 

[Messofanego]

I'm not in favor of hitting people in head with a baseball bat, but:

a) This guy repeatedly hurled abuse at children, and apparently has quite a history of it

b) The schools failed to protect their students

c) The police failed to protect the students, and it sounds like they failed to uphold the law (if the statements about them being on the scene and protecting the pastor are correct)

Given all of that, I'm going to have to empathize with the student (who is also a victim of the pastor's abuse), who lashed out with the bat. Given everyone else who has done wrong in this scenario, I'm going to judge her the least harshly.

This could be seen as an act of desperation after authorities and the educational institutions failed the people they're supposed to protect by allowing this preacher to spout off his disruptive hate speech. He should not be allowed near schools with that sign anywhere.

 

[Two Words]

lol Eden how are you not going to acknowledge that it is pretty weird to hit your cousin up to talk about some legal argument you're having on a video game message board? It reeks of "My dad works at Nintendo and..." All I can say is that you should expect a lot of side eyes even if you're being 100% honest.

 

[eggandI]

lmao that beautiful sound of the bat hitting his head

major props to that girl

 

[Crossing Eden]

lol Eden how are you not going to acknowledge that it is pretty weird to hit your cousin up to talk about some legal argument you're having on a video game message board?

I said specifically "I'm having a discussion with somebody about the legality of this news article." Why would I mention neogaf specifically?

 

[Two Words]

I said specifically "I'm having a discussion with somebody about the legality of this news article." Why would I mention neogaf specifically?

I'm sure you wouldn't say "Whats up cousin? So I'm having this argument with these guys on NeoGAF." That isn't my point.


btw, I'm gonna say this. I find the whole cutting everything out of a post except the part that you want to address as kind of annoying. I think it is much better to just bold that part instead of cutting it out. It is especially bad if the part you are leaving can make it look like that is all that they posted.

 

[Ketkat]

lol Eden how are you not going to acknowledge that it is pretty weird to hit your cousin up to talk about some legal argument you're having on a video game message board? It reeks of "My dad works at Nintendo and..." All I can say is that you should expect a lot of side eyes even if you're being 100% honest.

Why is it weird to talk to someone with experience in legal matters when you're having a legal argument somewhere? Should everyone just pull things out of their ass?

 

[Unbounded]

Are we really trying to argue whether or not a poster called their cousin.

Really now?

 

[Sianos]

Giving people like this preacher their own medicine works best: just mercilessly torment them verbally if they lack power and undermine their image if they do have power. Escalate if needed by isolating them from people they care about - should be easier for us since we're targeting the sort of guy who screams rape threats at children - without ever actually using physical violence. Then when they finally snap and retaliate physically themselves - because that's the only option to stop you they have left - be dramatic about it and utilize "self defense" to whatever extent you want.

This is, after all, exactly what they have done to LGBT folks for so long. So there's decades worth of deflections, obfuscations, and excuses for this behavior to draw from.

And since I'm only using my "freedom of speech" it is totally fine for me to do this and anyone who says otherwise is censoring me and my opinion or whatever.

I guess the alternative is people realizing that speech is fully capable of making people feel unsafe and when properly executed tearing someone apart, but for now apparently that's just another opinion on my part.

 

[marrec]

lol Eden how are you not going to acknowledge that it is pretty weird to hit your cousin up to talk about some legal argument you're having on a video game message board? It reeks of "My dad works at Nintendo and..." All I can say is that you should expect a lot of side eyes even if you're being 100% honest.

It's fuckin' weird as shit tbh

Isn't the issue with this principle that it can justify pretty much any action as long as the actor has a genuinely held moral belief in its rightness, whereas the law, even if fallible, applies at least some sort of (theoretical) universality?

It can be yes, but laws can be wrong as well and people have to be willing to recognize that. No, people shouldn't hit other people with bats. No, people shouldn't tell minors they should be raped. In this case, the woman who hit the man with the bat can be forgiven for her crime based on the context.

I've heard this before. That's all well and good if we all agreed what the right thing is. It sounds to me like you just like the idea of this guy taking a pop to the head. I get it, the guy is a complete shithead. It's nice to see shitheads get their due. But if we're going to proceed with that attitude, then expect to see a lot of people acting like vigilantes in all sorts of ways. That's the thing about these kinds of situations. You can't cherry pick every situation and say "This is okay" and "But this is not okay" due to how you feel about it because it isn't scalable.

We're imagining that you or I are sitting in the jury box in this scenario correct?

In that case, we aren't cherry picking, we're being presented the facts and asked to make a decision based on those facts. That's all. Based on the facts in this case and the repercussions of the charges I could not morally convict the woman in question. Yes, you can take this on a case by case basis as a human being, and not a raw interpreter of black and white law.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I'm sure you wouldn't say "Whats up cousin? So I'm having this argument with these guys on NeoGAF." That isn't my point.

I felt it would be good to get a fresh perspective, especially from a woman. This isn't the first nor the last time i've ever discussed legal matters with her. And lastly I should note that she did not say, at all that the girl in question did not deserve any legal repercussions for assault in response to the threat of violence. And certainly not the first nor the last time i've seen such a gross misinterpretation of U.S. free speech laws which according to some here, means, "literally nothing overrides the right to a man's free speech right to harass, demean, doxx, threaten, pr borderline incite violence against someone, Regardless of context, place, or the rights of the victim." Who certainly if they feel the need to, have the right to defend themselves, are still morally in the wrong for doing so.

 

[Two Words]

We're imagining that you or I are sitting in the jury box in this scenario correct?

In that case, we aren't cherry picking, we're being presented the facts and asked to make a decision based on those facts. That's all. Based on the facts in this case and the repercussions of the charges I could not morally convict the woman in question. Yes, you can take this on a case by case basis as a human being, and not a raw interpreter of black and white law.

And that's how white people and black people have vastly different guilty and time served ratings for the same crime, folks.

 

[marrec]

And that's how white people and black people have vastly different guilty and time served ratings for the same crime, folks.

No, that's because of the laws on the books and disproportionate arrest rates based on racism and bias on the state and federal level, the ability of a jury to acquit regardless of evidence is one way to save black youth from mandatory minimum crap.

 

[Rumblebones]

It's almost like i was already on the phone while i made that post. And that the conversation was direct and to the point. I suppose you aren't a good detective either.

Literally yes. Maybe stop projecting on how my family dynamic works?

Only if we refuse to accept the idea of a no nonsense or slippery slope conversation.

How convenient! You were already on the phone with your cousin when you were typing up your post offering to speak to her for her thoughts? And you were still one the phone with her while she watched the whole video and then gave you her analysis as you were typing up your follow up post?

Come on, now.

I don't have a history of lying on this forum and have mentioned her profession multiple times in the past outside of this thread. And have no reason to not be truthful.

You are blatantly lying right now.

Do you believe this constitutes an example of free speech or a failure on the part of the school and authorities to not protect their students from harassment so much so that they felt the need to protect themselves from a dangerous man inciting sexual violence against them?

Do you seriously think I don't see what you're doing? No, no, no.

You said I was arguing the preacher's speech was protected. I asked you to point out exactly where I did that.

Don't change the subject to some irrelevant loaded question that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

 

[chadtwo]

It's fuckin' weird as shit tbh



It can be yes, but laws can be wrong as well and people have to be willing to recognize that. No, people shouldn't hit other people with bats. No, people shouldn't tell minors they should be raped. In this case, the woman who hit the man with the bat can be forgiven for her crime based on the context.



We're imagining that you or I are sitting in the jury box in this scenario correct?

In that case, we aren't cherry picking, we're being presented the facts and asked to make a decision based on those facts. That's all. Based on the facts in this case and the repercussions of the charges I could not morally convict the woman in question. Yes, you can take this on a case by case basis as a human being, and not a raw interpreter of black and white law.

According to what standard?

 

[SolarMystic]

I'm not in favor of hitting people in head with a baseball bat, but:

a) This guy repeatedly hurled abuse at children, and apparently has quite a history of it

b) The schools failed to protect their students

c) The police failed to protect the students, and it sounds like they failed to uphold the law (if the statements about them being on the scene and protecting the pastor are correct)

Given all of that, I'm going to have to empathize with the student (who is also a victim of the pastor's abuse), who lashed out with the bat. Given everyone else who has done wrong in this scenario, I'm going to judge her the least harshly.

Yea, after some thought and watching the video, the only real victim in all of this is that poor girl who got charged.

People can only take so much verbal and mental abuse before understandably snapping.

Protesting garbage like this outside of a high school? Shit should be illegal.

 

[Sai-kun]

this put a smile on my face this morning

she shoulda gone for two hits

one good one is great though

 

[Two Words]

No, that's because of the laws on the books and disproportionate arrest rates based on racism and bias on the state and federal level, the ability of a jury to acquit regardless of evidence is one way to save black youth from mandatory minimum crap.

You are really going to side step all of the times that juries have and continue to allow their racial biases to either convict a black man or let a white man go? Laws impact black people disproportionately, but so do juries. Please don't for a single moment act like juries have been a savior of any kind for black people.

 

[Sianos]

Yea, after some thought and watching the video, the only real victim in all of this is that poor girl who got charged.

People can only take so much verbal and mental abuse before understandably snapping.

Protesting garbage like this outside of a high school? Shit should be illegal.

The upside is that bullies are usually the least prepared to deal with what it feels like to be psychologically abused.

That preacher probably doesn't have much to live for judging by his behavior, but I'm sure what that is could be discerned and taken away without using violence.

 

[Kite]

lol Eden how are you not going to acknowledge that it is pretty weird to hit your cousin up to talk about some legal argument you're having on a video game message board? It reeks of "My dad works at Nintendo and..." All I can say is that you should expect a lot of side eyes even if you're being 100% honest.

.. I have no dog in this fight, but is this really that weird? I dmed one of my old squad leaders who is ex-infantry and asked about his experience with white phosphorous based on that gaf thread yesterday, and on Monday I'm probably gonna chat with a co-worker who is ex-navy about the gabby giffords getting a ship named after her, also a gaf thread. It's current events, if I had some lawyer, doctor or science-y engineer friends I'd hit them up for info as well. I dun trust posters on gaf, too many people with agendas to push.

 

[Two Words]

.. I have no dog in this fight, but is this really that weird? I dmed one of my old squad leaders who is ex-infantry and asked about his experience with white phosphorous based on that gaf thread yesterday, and on Monday I'm probably gonna chat with a co-worker who is ex-navy about the gabby giffords getting a ship named after her, also a gaf thread. It's current events, if I had some lawyer, doctor or science-y engineer friends I'd hit them up for info as well. I dun trust posters on gaf, too many people with agendas to push.

I guess it is the immediacy of it that can seem weird.

 

[marrec]

You are really going to side step all of the times that juries have and continue to allow their racial biases to either convict a black man or let a white man go? Laws impact black people disproportionately, but so do juries. Please don't for a single moment act like juries have been a savior of any kind for black people.

They have been though, as my own personal jury story attests and the stories from the radiolab episode I linked.

Yes of course it's a double edged sword, but the ability of a jury to choose not to charge someone despite evidence can also protect classes that are disproportionately affected by racially motivated laws.

 

[Crossing Eden]

How convenient! You were already on the phone with your cousin when you were typing up your post offering to speak to her for her thoughts? And you were still one the phone with her while she watched the whole video and then gave you her analysis as you were typing up your follow up post?

Yes sir Mr. Wright.

Come on, now.

Literally what is impossible about that situation?

You are blatantly lying right now.

I'm sure you'd love that but if you've ever known my history on this forum, blatantly lying is not something that I do.

Do you seriously think I don't see what you're doing? No, no, no.

You'd be more successful attempting to point out that the side eye like Two Words tbh. I see you're taking this very personally. But you're no Phoenix Wright, literally nothing you can disprove the legitimacy of my actions. Yes, I was already on the phone with my cousin, discussing this situation already, no we didn't "exchange pleasantries" because literally the only reason I call her is to discuss legal matters, she knows

You said I was arguing the preacher's speech was protected. I asked you to point out exactly where I did that.

Yea it seems i was mistaken on that part specifically.

Don't change the subject to some irrelevant loaded question that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

It's not a loaded question at all. It's a simple as the idea that harassing minors with threats of rape is not protected by law.

.. I have no dog in this fight, but is this really that weird? I dmed one of my old squad leaders who is ex-infantry and asked about his experience with white phosphorous based on that gaf thread yesterday, and on Monday I'm probably gonna chat with a co-worker who is ex-navy about the gabby giffords getting a ship named after her, also a gaf thread. It's current events, if I had some lawyer, doctor or science-y engineer friends I'd hit them up for info as well. I dun trust posters on gaf, too many people with agendas to push.

Because they have to be right. If I had a history of lying on this forum they'd at least have a leg to stand on but gotta push that "lololol obviously you lieed" angle. Even funnier is that somebody else on the same page came right after me and confirmed what she had said was true. Which thankfully led to the full disappearance of the "muh free speech" crowd.

I guess it is the immediacy of it that can seem weird.

This is a twenty page thread.

 

[Rumblebones]

Are we really trying to argue whether or not a poster called their cousin.

Really now?

Why is it weird to talk to someone with experience in legal matters when you're having a legal argument somewhere? Should everyone just pull things out of their ass?

.. I have no dog in this fight, but is this really that weird? I dmed one of my old squad leaders who is ex-infantry and asked about his experience with white phosphorous based on that gaf thread yesterday, and on Monday I'm probably gonna chat with a co-worker who is ex-navy about the gabby giffords getting a ship named after her, also a gaf thread. It's current events, if I had some lawyer, doctor or science-y engineer friends I'd hit them up for info as well. I dun trust posters on gaf, too many people with agendas to push.

She's claiming to have had a 12 minute conversation in a 10 minute time gap.

About the law.

With her lawyer cousin.

Come on.

 

[a very cute dog]

I applaud the young woman, guy deserved it.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I'm sure you wouldn't say "Whats up cousin? So I'm having this argument with these guys on NeoGAF." That isn't my point.


btw, I'm gonna say this. I find the whole cutting everything out of a post except the part that you want to address as kind of annoying. I think it is much better to just bold that part instead of cutting it out. It is especially bad if the part you are leaving can make it look like that is all that they posted.

I find your suspicion annoying and a distraction from the issue being discussed. Who the fuck are you to call the other poster a liar?

 

[Ketkat]

She's claiming to have a 12 minute conversation in a 10 minute time gap.

About the law.

With her lawyer cousin.

Come on.

I really don't get why you think that someone has to watch every second of that youtube video to understand the situation. There's an article in the OP, and most of that video is teachers and people telling him to knock it off.

 

[Yayate]

She's claiming to have had a 12 minute conversation in a 10 minute time gap.

About the law.

With her lawyer cousin.

Come on.

...what's the point of this, exactly? You're not really accomplishing or proving anything.

 

[Two Words]

They have been though, as my own personal jury story attests and the stories from the radiolab episode I linked.

Yes of course it's a double edged sword, but the ability of a jury to choose not to charge someone despite evidence can also protect classes that are disproportionately affected by racially motivated laws.

Great for the <1% of the time it does that. Look man, I don't think you get just how much you are fighting against here. Juries have centuries of continued documented biases against black people. We're talking black people being hung on trees and juries looking the other way shit. While it may not be to that degree today, you have to acknowledge that juries are a massive net negative to minorities. When a majority of the nation has racial biases, a cocktail of people going by their gut isn't going to help you if you're part of a minority.

I find your suspicion annoying and a distraction from the issue being discussed. Who the fuck are you to call the other poster a liar?

When did I call Eden a liar?

 

[Rumblebones]

Yes sir Mr. Wright.


Literally what is impossible about that situation?


I'm sure you'd love that but if you've ever known my history on this forum, blatantly lying is not something that I do.


You'd be more successful attempting to point out that the side eye like Two Words tbh. I see you're taking this very personally.


Yea it seems i was mistaken on that part specifically.


It's not a loaded question at all. It's a simple as the idea that harassing minors with threats of rape is not protected by law

I don't believe a single word you have to say about your cousin and I am done dicussing it, so I'm happy to move on from that topic if you are unless you have something more substantial to add.

And your question is undoubtedly loaded because it carries presumption of specific wrongdoing. Please look up the meaning of the phrase so you don't have to take my word for it.

 

[Unbounded]

She's claiming to have had a 12 minute conversation in a 10 minute time gap.

About the law.

With her lawyer cousin.

Come on.

I mean sure, I don't really buy it either, but what does it really matter to the overarching discussion if they're lying? You just continue as before and address any arguments that they bring up.

 

[Sianos]

If persisting to tell children they deserve to be raped is not illegal, then character assassinating this preacher - not that hard to do for this lunatic - and driving wedges between him and anyone who he cares about away is also not illegal.

Gotta put that infinite plausible deniability to work for good, right? I've done nothing wrong, it just so happens that my speech has profoundly negative effects that totally aren't intended on assholes who intentionally and egregiously hurt people I care about.

 

[apieceofstrange]

Won't say the guy didn't deserve what he got nor do I feel bad for him, but I can't get behind this level of violence. Hitting someone over the head with a bat could have easily ended up being lethal.

While it's easy to champion the girl, truth is her quality of life takes a huge hit and guy will continue being a scumbag and probably even feels vindicated.

Even if you think it was justified, it was absolutely not worth taking a felony over. The school and police should have been more vigilant about removing him.

 

[RedHill]

I've heard this before. That's all well and good if we all agreed what the right thing is. It sounds to me like you just like the idea of this guy taking a pop to the head. I get it, the guy is a complete shithead. It's nice to see shitheads get their due. But if we're going to proceed with that attitude, then expect to see a lot of people acting like vigilantes in all sorts of ways. That's the thing about these kinds of situations. You can't cherry pick every situation and say "This is okay" and "But this is not okay" due to how you feel about it because it isn't scalable.

You're always quick to defend disgusting people that get hit aren't you? I remember you in the thread when Richard Spencer got hit. You may want to reevaluate the kinds of things you're defending.

 

[Two Words]

You're always quick to defend disgusting people that get hit aren't you? I remember you in the thread when Richard Spencer got hit. You may want to reevaluate the kinds of things you're defending.

I actually don't remember talking about Richard Spencer.

 

[Breads]

I guess it is the immediacy of it that can seem weird.

If you're in this thread odds are you also have access to twitter, discord, facebook, and maybe a phone. There have been many a time where I participate in the same discussion on multiple venues. Hell I've posted on gaf while playing dota/ overwatch (between matches/ etc). Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to be able to post in a forum and do other things and talk to other people at the same time.

Making the assertion that someone couldn't have done a thing while posting is an odd and unproductive stance in this discussion and is borderline ad hominem depending on how the point is being conveyed.

 

[Aske]

Shyamalan twist: this guy is a ghost, and this is his personal hell. He must experience the impotence of his hatred in the face of kids who love and accept each other; and be physically overpowered by women who aren't shamed into submission by his worthless rhetoric.

 

[marrec]

Great for the <1% of the time it does that. Look man, I don't think you get just how much you are fighting against here. Juries have centuries of continued documented biases against black people. We're talking black people being hung on trees and juries looking the other way shit. While it may not be to that degree today, you have to acknowledge that juries are a massive net negative to minorities. When a majority of the nation has racial biases, a cocktail of people going by their gut isn't going to help you if you're part of a minority.

Certainly, but it's a useful tool to have when the laws are also racially motivated.

Either way, we're a bit into the weeds here, as much as this discussion is interesting I believe we probably both agree that this dude getting clocked isn't necessarily a bad thing (fuck that dude), but the legal process needs to take place for the girl (and did take place).

 

[Crossing Eden]

She's claiming to have had a 12 minute conversation in a 10 minute time gap.

About the law.

With her lawyer cousin.

Come on.

Wait, have people been calling me a woman ITT???

I don't believe a single word you have to say about your cousin and I am done dicussing it, so I'm happy to move on from that topic if you are unless you have something more substantial to add

Only that you should really learn to trust my words and intentions instead of assuming i'm lying. Because accusing me of lying of people, especially with phrases like "it doesn't add up." Is a bit ridiculous.

And your question is undoubtedly loaded because it carries presumption of specific wrongdoing. Please look up the meaning of the phrase so you don't have to take my word for it.

Well here's the thing, the dude was already guilty, he was in violation of the law, he's just an example of our law system not doing it's job in protecting citizens. Something that happens quite often, especially in the pursuit of "free speech."

 

[Rumblebones]

I really don't get why you think that someone has to watch every second of that youtube video to understand the situation. There's an article in the OP, and most of that video is teachers and people telling him to knock it off.

I already addressed this, but to paraphrase: lawyers asked for their professional opinion do not skim. They review the evidence themselves and then give their analysis. No trained lawyer would read the cliff notes and give any sort of definitive statement Eden claims their cousin gave them.

...what's the point of this, exactly? You're not really accomplishing or proving anything.

I mean sure, I don't really buy it either, but what does it really matter to the overarching discussion if they're lying? You just continue as before and address any arguments that they bring up.

I don't like being lied to, especially when it's obvious, and the tricky thing about the law and arguing it is that a lot of it comes down to the strength of the arguments and interpretations presented, so refuting Eden's post requires me to discredit their "evidence."

 

[Sianos]

probably even feels vindicated

But when you undermine someone using speech, they don't even get to feel that way! They don't even get the luxury of an enemy to hate when done properly, because they are the enemy of the world and have been exposed.

Punching Richard Spencer worked because he's the figurehead for a cabal of white nationalists and is on the record threatening ethnic cleansing. For people with a lower profile (who are still just as heinous), they have a weaker "image" and by extension usually "identity", so utterly destroy that instead!

I mean, this is some Forbidden Technique shit to be reserved for protecting those relentlessly targeted by the bully - psychological attacks are just like physical ones in that regard.

 

[Two Words]

Certainly, but it's a useful tool to have when the laws are also racially motivated.

Either way, we're a bit into the weeds here, as much as this discussion is interesting I believe we probably both agree that this dude getting clocked isn't necessarily a bad thing (fuck that dude), but the legal process needs to take place for the girl (and did take place).

The thing you don't get is that the very thing you are saying is helping minorities is typically hurting them. Now think how hard it is to fight against the harm caused by juries on minorities if we're going to act like it helps minorities?

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Y'all sitting here talking bout "laws" and now more than ever it's apparent that Congress and Washington ain't working for the people.

Shaking my damn head.

 

[Rumblebones]

Wait, have people been calling me a woman ITT???

My apologies.

Only that you should really learn to trust my words and intentions instead of assuming i'm lying.

Unfortunately, I don't, but I am happy to move on amicably regardless.

Well here's the thing, the dude was already guilty, he was in violation of the law, he's just an example of our law system not doing it's job in protecting citizens. Something that happens quite often, especially in the pursuit of "free speech."

That's your take on it. Not mine. I don't have a take on his speech because I frankly don't care. That isn't a discussion I am interested in having with you, sorry.

 

[Breads]

Y'all sitting here talking bout "laws" and now more than ever it's apparent that Congress and Washington ain't working for the people.

Shaking my damn head.

Yeah seriously.

Police can murder people while sleeping in their, being in their newly gentrified neighborhood while holding a burrito wrapped in foil, working on their lawn, selling loose cigarettes, pissing on the side of the building (this one got a man choked to death), exercising their supposedly protected right to carry, and etc and these people wouldn't even bat an eye. Hell police have shot a man for laying on the ground with his hands in the air begging for them not to shoot him.

Whack a psycho holding a sign saying kids to get raped while yelling at them in a school yard and suddenly free speech and decorum is on the line! I wonder if they would say the same thing if the preacher was black or hispanic and the person with the bat was a cop.

I know the answer, but yeah. Fucked up how selective peoples priorities are.

 

[Pizza]

Wow so it's almost like the guy advocating assault got assaulted

If there is a god, I'm sure this is her telling this moron something that'll go over his head

 

[Royce McCutcheon]

I wonder if they would say the same thing if the preacher was black or hispanic and the person with the bat was a cop.

What??