• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

You are making that up.
All good.

I can't be bothered trawling through the while black threads to post links showing the same posters showing healthy skepticism here (which is good) seemed the opposite on those.

Go with me making it up.

I'll take the hit

Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk
 
You know there's a video, right?

John Crawford 3rd was on camera being shot before he could even turn his head to see police, for holding an airsoft gun, that he got off the shelf at the store he was murdered in. People were wildly skeptical.

Eric Garner was strangled, on camera, in an attempt to arrest him, over a non-arrestable offense, that everyone around agreed he hadn't even done. People said it was justified.

Tamir Rice was shot, on camera, by a cop who drove directly up to him. His sister was then tackled and arrested when she tried to help him. THis was deemed wonderful policing.

And of course, there was Trayvon Martin, who thuggishly ran away from George Zimmerman. THis was cited as evidence that Martin must have attacked Zimmerman.

I myself posted a video of a black kid taking a picture where he and the town mayor pointed at each other at a get out the vote drive. Quite a few insisted that this could be a gang symbol.

Thankfully, most of the racists who made these assertions have left, but some are still around.

Thus, I'm saying that the kid being hit in the video is in reality a violent white supremacist who was just about to murder someone, until the brave young woman in the video struck back and stopped him.
 
Still not following you. This story should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. The reported action is not indicative of the accompanying narrative. Why wouldn't it be questioned?

I am not disagreeing. I am just curious if all of those skeptical in other threads involving bad treatment of a member of a group express similar skepticism here.
 
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on Post #33.

"Now, Little Johnny, you didn't attack this boy because of his politics, did you? If you had, that would be a much, much more serious problem. Do you understand, Little Johnny?"

"Oh! Yes, sir! I understand completely! No sir, this wasn't about politics at all, I swear!"

Assuming the school administration was even competent enough to get a meaningful interview with the assailants in the first place. Knowing the state of American education, the school's account is probably just as much of an ass pull as their student competency scores.
 
Last edited:
All good.

I can't be bothered trawling through the while black threads to post links showing the same posters showing healthy skepticism here (which is good) seemed the opposite on those.

Go with me making it up.

I'll take the hit

Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk

You said "this thread", you are now simply lying.
 
I'm really struggling with getting my head around this incident and how it is unfolding.

I'm sure we all agree that kids shouldn't be getting into fights with one another and if caught having a fight punishment should be doled out.(Obviously the severity of the fight may change how it is dealt with but this to me looks just like a typical school yard fight.)

What I see here is kids having a fight, and because there is video that I presume the school can identify the assailants by those kids can be punished.

And that should be that.

Instead what we have is a lawyer being retained, accusations of political motivation and/or racial motivation and the kids being arrested!
 
You said "this thread", you are now simply lying.

Yes

This thread is humorous seeing the same people who weren't doing healthy skepticism on the while black threads, suddenly doing healthy skepticism.

It is not an issue.

Just found it funny
 
I'm really struggling with getting my head around this incident and how it is unfolding.

I'm sure we all agree that kids shouldn't be getting into fights with one another and if caught having a fight punishment should be doled out.(Obviously the severity of the fight may change how it is dealt with but this to me looks just like a typical school yard fight.)

What I see here is kids having a fight, and because there is video that I presume the school can identify the assailants by those kids can be punished.

And that should be that.

Instead what we have is a lawyer being retained, accusations of political motivation and/or racial motivation and the kids being arrested!

Two things going on, and they're separate. One, if people, even kids, attack violently enough to cross a line of physical harm done then yes, it's a crime a yes, the apparatus of criminal investigation should occur. Jimmy throws a light punch is different from Jimmy and four friends stomping on heads.

Two, in the US (and elsewhere, this isn't unique to here) people smell the potential for rich payouts whenever something happens that shouldn't have happened, especially so if anything government-run is involved. Some people dream of falling in a Walmart or getting hit by a Post Office mail truck because they imagine the result will be millions in legal settlement. It's a combination of basic greed and the realization that most people are not going to achieve great economic success on their own efforts. Outside serendipity is an escape from cold reality.

Perhaps a third thing in this case is people want to use absolutely anything and everything as a political weapon these days, but I'm comfortable in assuming that eben without any political angle this event would still result in lawyers and cops because of the first two things. Those are far stronger reasons than mere politics.
 
I'm really struggling with getting my head around this incident and how it is unfolding.

I'm sure we all agree that kids shouldn't be getting into fights with one another and if caught having a fight punishment should be doled out.(Obviously the severity of the fight may change how it is dealt with but this to me looks just like a typical school yard fight.)

What I see here is kids having a fight, and because there is video that I presume the school can identify the assailants by those kids can be punished.

And that should be that.

Instead what we have is a lawyer being retained, accusations of political motivation and/or racial motivation and the kids being arrested!

Have you met... America?

1. Nothing is politically neutral.

2. In America if Steve punches Ted, Ted being arrested for punching Steve isn't enough. Justice is only served if Steve sues the building he was standing in for not doing more to stop Ted from punching him.
 
Sounds to me this thread is about a despicable Trump cultist with no moral values is trying to make political and/or financial hay out of her son being abused. Sad.
 
Yes

This thread is humorous seeing the same people who weren't doing healthy skepticism on the while black threads, suddenly doing healthy skepticism.

It is not an issue.

Just found it funny

Your original post claimed that you were amused by a number of posts that you claim expressed the opposite of Darat's opinion that what happened to the child was inexcusable. Certainly you have the capacity to sift through thirty five posts to highlight the one's claiming that the assault was justified.

Or you could again just pretend that you were talking about something else and hope no one notices the switch.
 
Sounds to me this thread is about a despicable Trump cultist with no moral values is trying to make political and/or financial hay out of her son being abused. Sad.

Is it justifiable to punch trump supporters?
 
Two things going on, and they're separate. One, if people, even kids, attack violently enough to cross a line of physical harm done then yes, it's a crime a yes, the apparatus of criminal investigation should occur. Jimmy throws a light punch is different from Jimmy and four friends stomping on heads.

Two, in the US (and elsewhere, this isn't unique to here) people smell the potential for rich payouts whenever something happens that shouldn't have happened, especially so if anything government-run is involved. Some people dream of falling in a Walmart or getting hit by a Post Office mail truck because they imagine the result will be millions in legal settlement. It's a combination of basic greed and the realization that most people are not going to achieve great economic success on their own efforts. Outside serendipity is an escape from cold reality.

Perhaps a third thing in this case is people want to use absolutely anything and everything as a political weapon these days, but I'm comfortable in assuming that eben without any political angle this event would still result in lawyers and cops because of the first two things. Those are far stronger reasons than mere politics.

This. This. This. Very insightful. Those who are going for a 'pay day' are an irksome group. I knew someone a few years ago who made a list of high end stores that had escalators or stairs she could pretend to injure herself while shopping.

So low, so wrong.
 
This. This. This. Very insightful. Those who are going for a 'pay day' are an irksome group. I knew someone a few years ago who made a list of high end stores that had escalators or stairs she could pretend to injure herself while shopping.

So low, so wrong.

Those are the ones where you want to go:

"We're sorry, we need to re-enact your accident. Can you stand here, at the top of the stairs? Thank you!"

*push*

:D
 
It seems that being a con-man is starting to become an acceptable occupation in the states. After all, look at the president.

Who'd have thought that the snake-oil salesmen of the old west would one day be running the nation?
 

Back
Top Bottom