A colleague of mine ... let's just say a guy with a lot to lose ... wanted to make a point I guess and took his son to a protest. I told him I thought that was a bad idea for a guy who lives on Lake Washington. Let's take the boat out instead eh buddy?.
Of course, creep was right. Some asshole threw something ... forget what it was like a phone or thermos or some shit ... it his kid in the face and cracked an orbital bone. Not the end of the world, but not what he bargained for either.
The people who spend day after day doing this shit ... whether it's antifa or proud boys or something else ... are the "other" people. One should always keep that in mind. They don't have the same stake in an ordered society that we all have and thus act accordingly with any stimulant.
Only Liberal fucktards take their kids to protests that always eventually get violent.
CSD needs to pay a visit. And you need less fucktarded friends.
I'll be sure to let him know a CUOG! from Salem Oregon has concerns about his son's welfare.
I'd want to see what caused the fight to break out. I don't think you should be able to start a fight with someone then shoot the guy when you start to get your ass kicked.
But you do believe in beating a man unconscious and into a coma if he accidentally hits a kid that was playing in the street.
He also thinks that Zimmerman started the fight with Saint Skittles and then shot him because he was losing.
Well, ostensibly he did shoot him because he was losing. I think even the members of the Zimmerman Fan Club say as much.
But I've never read anything in the transcript of that trial that established with any credible proof (in other words, more than George's version) who technically started the fight. Nobody was around for that besides George and Trayvon.
And, that night at least, he was Saint Skittles. There has never even been an allegation that he was doing anything wrong when George ID'd him as one of those "assholes who always get away."
See what I mean.
No. Since you seem to know more about it, then just spit it out. Like my friend, NW, I'm happy to be set straight and admit I was wrong. And "if only we had a system where both sides could present evidence" isn't spitting it out.
Been there done that. You ignore everything I say and plough straight on with your fact free feelings.
If only there had been a trial where all of the evidence could have been presented.
You drastically overestimate my feelings. My heart and feelings are for my wife and kids. My balls are for business, and this is business.
Trust me, you confusing your feelings for facts isn't me overestimating the value of your feelings.
I don't trust you. And you do overestimate my emotional involvement - drastically so. And that's ok. It's a good rhetorical device to accuse the other guy of being hysterical. I use it with my wife all the tim, even when she's right.
If you were emotionally involved you might have taken the trouble to avail yourself to the facts. You're a lazy emotionalist who doesn't bother to make yourself aware of the facts. I estimate your emotional involvement correctly.
You do realize that she's criminally assaulting him by pushing him, don't you? Whether his action was excessive or not, he had a right to push her away.
Based solely on that one clip - freely admit I've not seen others - no, I don't agree she's criminally assaulting him with that little shoulder nudge to get him off of her jock. I get bumped harder by little Asian women at the Holiday Lane parade in Bellevue. If she did something more before that, then maybe. But like I said - I literally get that much contact at the meet freezer at Costco.
Never really thought of it as that. But I guess that works too.
Many years ago when I played the blood sport of co Ed indoor soccer, I had a girl basically doing this to me for half of the game as I played keeper. Finally I had enough and let her drop step work and then hip checked her to the ground. She actually cried.
Of course she ignored the 23 other warnings I Gave her and I was the bad guy.
I'd want to see what caused the fight to break out. I don't think you should be able to start a fight with someone then shoot the guy when you start to get your ass kicked.
But you do believe in beating a man unconscious and into a coma if he accidentally hits a kid that was playing in the street.
He also thinks that Zimmerman started the fight with Saint Skittles and then shot him because he was losing.
Well, ostensibly he did shoot him because he was losing. I think even the members of the Zimmerman Fan Club say as much.
But I've never read anything in the transcript of that trial that established with any credible proof (in other words, more than George's version) who technically started the fight. Nobody was around for that besides George and Trayvon.
And, that night at least, he was Saint Skittles. There has never even been an allegation that he was doing anything wrong when George ID'd him as one of those "assholes who always get away."
See what I mean.
If only there had been a trial with witnesses and stuff and an acquittal.
Ignore all that, I have really strong feelings about what went down with that case and those feelings are more important than your pesky facts. Did you know the police ordered him not to chase Trademark?
I see your point. My sincerest apologies for taking so long. I'm a Cuog after all, so bear with me.
The intellectually massive difference between police dispatch telling him "we don't need you to do that, ok" and a police order clears up the fog considerably. With this illuminating clarification, and the heavy breathing business, I now see it your way.
I'd want to see what caused the fight to break out. I don't think you should be able to start a fight with someone then shoot the guy when you start to get your ass kicked.
But you do believe in beating a man unconscious and into a coma if he accidentally hits a kid that was playing in the street.
He also thinks that Zimmerman started the fight with Saint Skittles and then shot him because he was losing.
Well, ostensibly he did shoot him because he was losing. I think even the members of the Zimmerman Fan Club say as much.
But I've never read anything in the transcript of that trial that established with any credible proof (in other words, more than George's version) who technically started the fight. Nobody was around for that besides George and Trayvon.
And, that night at least, he was Saint Skittles. There has never even been an allegation that he was doing anything wrong when George ID'd him as one of those "assholes who always get away."
See what I mean.
No. Since you seem to know more about it, then just spit it out. Like my friend, NW, I'm happy to be set straight and admit I was wrong. And "if only we had a system where both sides could present evidence" isn't spitting it out.
Been there done that. You ignore everything I say and plough straight on with your fact free feelings.
If only there had been a trial where all of the evidence could have been presented.
You drastically overestimate my feelings. My heart and feelings are for my wife and kids. My balls are for business, and this is business.
Trust me, you confusing your feelings for facts isn't me overestimating the value of your feelings.
I don't trust you. And you do overestimate my emotional involvement - drastically so. And that's ok. It's a good rhetorical device to accuse the other guy of being hysterical. I use it with my wife all the tim, even when she's right.
If you were emotionally involved you might have taken the trouble to avail yourself to the facts. You're a lazy emotionalist who doesn't bother to make yourself aware of the facts. I estimate your emotional involvement correctly.
You are incorrect sir. Your estimation is entirely inaccurate, unless you've managed to acquire that mind reading thing we used to talk about.
You do realize that she's criminally assaulting him by pushing him, don't you? Whether his action was excessive or not, he had a right to push her away.
Based solely on that one clip - freely admit I've not seen others - no, I don't agree she's criminally assaulting him with that little shoulder nudge to get him off of her jock. I get bumped harder by little Asian women at the Holiday Lane parade in Bellevue. If she did something more before that, then maybe. But like I said - I literally get that much contact at the meet freezer at Costco.
Never really thought of it as that. But I guess that works too.
The difference is intent. Just unwanted touching can be an assault.
I don't think you're going to get too far with that in that context. If he's managing to technically not touch her with what he was doing before she nudged her shoulder, it's a miracle, and in any event if we're being that nitpicky then we could also argue assault on his part because you don't need physical contact for that. You just need to reasonably be in apprehension of physical harm.
No judge on the planet would do anything with what she did in that clip given what he was already doing.
The way I see it is that he was not trying to touch her or assault her at all. He simply wanted around her and so she purposely stepped in his way with her arms stretched out and shoulder against him.
I'm somewhere in the middle. It isn't something that warrants being dragged to the ground, but it's also not nothing either. It's an action that in my experience causes people to become agitated. Not victim blaming, so don't twist.
Yeah I don't really have an opinion on that situation either way. Just noticed that the physical contact, based on that video, was initiated by the woman. I wouldn't have dragged her to the ground.
I'd say otherwise. Watch it again. He arguably initiated the contact, and what she did in response was barely anything and for sure didn't warrant what he did. Her back was to him the entire time ... at least in the clip.
Are you sure? I'm watching it and it looks like she is purposely moving in front of him to block him, resulting in contact.
Though like I said, I agree...I don't think it warrants the reaction he had.
I think she smirked at him
It was more of a come hither/fuck me look. At least back in the 80's that's how it would have been interpretted.
And if the chick is going to try to block out, she should get her butt down and feet spread at least shoulder width apart. That was pure Ricky Mahorn on the throw down.
The way I see it is that he was not trying to touch her or assault her at all. He simply wanted around her and so she purposely stepped in his way with her arms stretched out and shoulder against him.
I'm somewhere in the middle. It isn't something that warrants being dragged to the ground, but it's also not nothing either. It's an action that in my experience causes people to become agitated. Not victim blaming, so don't twist.
This is a reasonable take. Please gtfo of the tug with that shit.
The way I see it is that he was not trying to touch her or assault her at all. He simply wanted around her and so she purposely stepped in his way with her arms stretched out and shoulder against him.
I'm somewhere in the middle. It isn't something that warrants being dragged to the ground, but it's also not nothing either. It's an action that in my experience causes people to become agitated. Not victim blaming, so don't twist.
Not twisting. But you and I, and every other mentally balanced adult, would have walked 5 or so yards in either direction away from her, or used a better first step, and just make our way around. Or, better yet, we wouldn't GAF and assess it wasn't worth engaging with someone in an already cranked up situation.
I know guys like him. I think in all liklihood he was looking for a fight and wanted that shit to happen. Not the shoot-out. But the scuffle with the chick. He doesn't portray as the image of a normal person saying "excuse me. may I pass through? i'm just on my way."
You do realize that she's criminally assaulting him by pushing him, don't you? Whether his action was excessive or not, he had a right to push her away.
Criminal assault?
This is the snowflakiest post ever.
Holy shit pull your tampon out man.
Nevermind that it's the law.
Sorry if that inconvenience interferes with your ignorance.
You do realize that she's criminally assaulting him by pushing him, don't you? Whether his action was excessive or not, he had a right to push her away.
Based solely on that one clip - freely admit I've not seen others - no, I don't agree she's criminally assaulting him with that little shoulder nudge to get him off of her jock. I get bumped harder by little Asian women at the Holiday Lane parade in Bellevue. If she did something more before that, then maybe. But like I said - I literally get that much contact at the meet freezer at Costco.
Sorry Creep, but what she's doing is illegal and codified in the law. You can't "restrain" someone from going where they want to go. I wouldn't have done what the guy did, and as I stated, his force would probably be deemed unreasonable, subjecting him to charges of his own. She technically has no legal right to impede or restrain his movement.
Why this matters is because it's happening daily, all over the CHAZ, and those ignorant fucks are breaking the law every time they step in front and make contact with people by pushing or grabbing them. A lot of CHAZ outsiders are missing Golden Opportunities to clock those skinny legged fucks every day, because they don't know the law. And that makes me sad.
You do realize that she's criminally assaulting him by pushing him, don't you? Whether his action was excessive or not, he had a right to push her away.
Criminal assault?
This is the snowflakiest post ever.
Holy shit pull your tampon out man.
Nevermind that it's the law.
Sorry if that inconvenience interferes with your ignorance.
There is nothing at all criminal about what she's doing.
Comments
The intellectually massive difference between police dispatch telling him "we don't need you to do that, ok" and a police order clears up the fog considerably. With this illuminating clarification, and the heavy breathing business, I now see it your way.
And, yes, I had to edit that.
No judge on the planet would do anything with what she did in that clip given what he was already doing.
I'm somewhere in the middle. It isn't something that warrants being dragged to the ground, but it's also not nothing either. It's an action that in my experience causes people to become agitated. Not victim blaming, so don't twist.
And if the chick is going to try to block out, she should get her butt down and feet spread at least shoulder width apart. That was pure Ricky Mahorn on the throw down.
I know guys like him. I think in all liklihood he was looking for a fight and wanted that shit to happen. Not the shoot-out. But the scuffle with the chick. He doesn't portray as the image of a normal person saying "excuse me. may I pass through? i'm just on my way."
Sorry if that inconvenience interferes with your ignorance.
The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache.
Why this matters is because it's happening daily, all over the CHAZ, and those ignorant fucks are breaking the law every time they step in front and make contact with people by pushing or grabbing them. A lot of CHAZ outsiders are missing Golden Opportunities to clock those skinny legged fucks every day, because they don't know the law. And that makes me sad.
No DA in the country would take that case.
IRYK
STOp.