Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Thermal]

Occam's Razor. You do you, but Occam's Razor.

If Robby O is weighing in, the simplest explanagion is that Pujols is a violent criminal. That's demonstrable. What the old man said packs little weight, unless he said that he was about to shoot Pujols or something.

Pujols story has been out now for a week, there were plenty of employees in the store, and not a single one has refuted Pujols claim.

Nor confirmed. All these witnesses, and not one backing up the story? No one actually heard anything? Hm.

I see no reason why he would lie about just that considering it doesn't really help his case much, does it? He isn't getting a different\lower charge because of it. He didn't get lower bail because of it. In fact, you could change that "racist" word out with any other word and it doesn't change the charges at all. So, as you say, if it's to score sympathy it certainly doesn't seem to be working. Unless you think that Pujols gives a **** what a bunch of random people he doesn't know think about what he did.

A judge can consider provocation in sentencing. A jury can be sympathetic, perhaps to the point of swinging a verdict. Also, he was certainly winging it when giving his statement to police. I doubt he would thoughtfully weigh out relevant legal precedent.

 

[plague311]

If Robby O is weighing in, the simplest explanagion is that Pujols is a violent criminal. That's demonstrable. What the old man said packs little weight, unless he said that he was about to shoot Pujols or something.

No idea what this means, I don't need it clarified. Just wanted you to know that whatever point you were trying to make didn't work.

Nor confirmed. All these witnesses, and not one backing up the story? No one actually heard anything? Hm.

Sounds like it was confirmed in the police reports as they refer to the witnesses being in the store. What do you want as a confirmation? Would you like a specific person to come forward and say, "I agree with what Pujols said!"? Until proven otherwise, the old man saying something racist has been reported in every media that I can find, and nothing to the contrary. Again, Occam's Razor.

A judge can consider provocation in sentencing. A jury can be sympathetic, perhaps to the point of swinging a verdict. Also, he was certainly winging it when giving his statement to police. I doubt he would thoughtfully weigh out relevant legal precedent.

Well this is a mess of a statement. So he didn't think it through, but he did think it through enough to make a self serving story? You doubt he would weigh out relevant legal precedent, but did weigh it enough to make up the old man saying a racist statement to get sympathy down the road at a trial he wasn't sure he'd be in, and a sentencing you're saying might not even happen because his statement might get him off? Do I have that right?

Pujols is a mystical ******* creature that's for sure.

 

[Thermal]

No idea what this means, I don't need it clarified. Just wanted you to know that whatever point you were trying to make didn't work.

It's not complicated. Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is that Pujols was a violent criminal, full stop. It doesn't matter what the old guy said (barring a credible threat of imminent harm) any more than what color socks they were wearing.

Sounds like it was confirmed in the police reports as they refer to the witnesses being in the store. What do you want as a confirmation? Would you like a specific person to come forward and say, "I agree with what Pujols said!"? Until proven otherwise, the old man saying something racist has been reported in every media that I can find, and nothing to the contrary. Again, Occam's Razor.

People yap in the age of social media. Yes, I would expect to hear tweets from people who were there. You know how people love to gab about eyewitnessing. Also, witnesses were interviewed but none are quoted regarding anything about the slur, which (let's face it) is the thrust of the story here. The police solely cite Pujols himself as reporting it.

Well this is a mess of a statement. So he didn't think it through, but he did think it through enough to make a self serving story? You doubt he would weight out relevant legal precedent, but did weigh it enough to make up the old man saying a racist statement to get sympathy down the road at a trial he wasn't sure he'd be in, and a sentencing you're saying might not even happen because his statement might get him off? Do I have that right?

Pujols is a mystical ******* creature that's for sure.

Again, really not that complicated. Pujols is answering to his battery charge. Its no stretch to come up with "he ussd a racial slur" to vaguely think this may get you off under some kind of hate crime interpretation. No further thinking necessary. Basically a quick off-the-cuff cover story that may or may not help.

Again, I don't seriously doubt his version. But it's nowhere near solid enough to publicly bad mouth and cheer the death of the old guy, who likely has survivors. Is that so high a behavioral bar?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's not complicated. Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is that Pujols was a violent criminal, full stop. It doesn't matter what the old guy said (barring a credible threat of imminent harm) any more than what color socks they were wearing.

What a strange way to view the world, that some people are inherently violent criminals and others are not. A bizarre binary.

Plenty of people who have never and will never commit a violent crime could probably be badgered into doing so if the right buttons were pushed.

Go find your nicest, most genial friend and tell them their wife is a whore or that their child is a filthy racial slur or whatever and report back your findings.

Go to your nearest dunkin donuts and start personally antagonizing the staff because they didn't deliver an $.89 cup of coffee to your expectations and see how that works out.

 

[plague311]

It's not complicated. Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is that Pujols was a violent criminal, full stop. It doesn't matter what the old guy said (barring a credible threat of imminent harm) any more than what color socks they were wearing.

No, that is not at all what Occam's Razor would say. The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation is the one we have seen repeatedly. An individual said something racist and got punched. You're the one implying that the old man might have said nothing racist at all, and for some reason (with no explanation at all) Pujols just punches him in the face.

Whatever though, this makes no difference at all to my point. So this is all a red herring.

People yap in the age of social media. Yes, I would expect to hear tweets from people who were there. You know how people love to gab about eyewitnessing. Also, witnesses were interviewed but none are quoted regarding anything about the slur, which (let's face it) is the thrust of the story here. The police solely cite Pujols himself as reporting it.

It's in the charging documents and you're statement is dual edged. If they talk about it on social media then where are the people saying nothing racist was ever muttered? This is the worst possible reasoning available.

Nobody is quoted at all, outside of Pujols. Not even the people that were working in the drive thru when it all started. I don't see that as evidence for anything.

Again, really not that complicated. Pujols is answering to his battery charge. Its no stretch to come up with "he ussd a racial slur" to vaguely think this may get you off under some kind of hate crime interpretation. No further thinking necessary. Basically a quick off-the-cuff cover story that may or may not help.

LoL...right. No holes at all in that theory. This Pujols guy really is a piece of ****. Not only is he punching and killing white men, but now he's lying about it too! You're right. Thank God for you Thermal. I was about to believe this self-serving piece of ****. This is why I'm thankful for people like you. Always helping me see the truth about these evil, lying, violent black men that roam among us. Top. Notch. Detective. Work.

Again, I don't seriously doubt his version.

Except where you constantly express doubt about Pujols version.

But it's nowhere near solid enough to publicly bad mouth and cheer the death of the old guy, who likely has survivors. Is that so high a behavioral bar?

I don't care about his survivors. I don't care about him. I don't care if people bad mouth and cheer his death. I don't care how others talk about him because I don't need other people to live up to my definition of a "behavioral bar". I have my own.

 

[Thermal]

What a strange way to view the world, that some people are inherently violent criminals and others are not. A bizarre binary.

Who said anything about "inherent" or binary anything? At this time and place, he was indisputably violent and indisputably a criminal. I've been one at times. Doesn't make it my overall nature. What are you reading here?

Plenty of people who have never and will never commit a violent crime could probably be badgered into doing so if the right buttons were pushed.

Go find your nicest, most genial friend and tell them their wife is a whore or that their child is a filthy racial slur or whatever and report back your findings.

Disagreed. It does take a certain level of violent disposition to act out. A timid person might retreat rather than take a swing. Between fight and flight, some choose one over the other without fail. There is a whole spectrum. Feeling a bit binary now, are we?

Go to your nearest dunkin donuts and start personally antagonizing the staff because they didn't deliver an $.89 cup of coffee to your expectations and see how that works out.

I've seen similar. Haven't we all? Eye-rolling and "oh yes sir" as he is shuffled out the door are reactions I see to tirades, usually. I mean, who cares?

More importantly: 89 cent for coffee at Dunkin? Really?

 

[Thermal]

No, that is not at all what Occam's Razor would say. The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation is the one we have seen repeatedly. An individual said something racist and got punched. You're the one implying that the old man might have said nothing racist at all, and for some reason (with no explanation at all) Pujols just punches him in the face.

Whatever though, this makes no difference at all to my point. So this is all a red herring.



It's in the charging documents and you're statement is dual edged. If they talk about it on social media then where are the people saying nothing racist was ever muttered? This is the worst possible reasoning available.

Nobody is quoted at all, outside of Pujols. Not even the people that were working in the drive thru when it all started. I don't see that as evidence for anything.



LoL...right. No holes at all in that theory. This Pujols guy really is a piece of ****. Not only is he punching and killing white men, but now he's lying about it too! You're right. Thank God for you Thermal. I was about to believe this self-serving piece of ****. This is why I'm thankful for people like you. Always helping me see the truth about these evil, lying, violent black men that roam among us. Top. Notch. Detective. Work.



Except where you constantly express doubt about Pujols version.



I don't care about his survivors. I don't care about him. I don't care if people bad mouth and cheer his death. I don't care how others talk about him because I don't need other people to live up to my definition of a "behavioral bar". I have my own.

Ok, that was...weird.

 

[Belz...]

Assuming the incident was as described, absolutely. He was asking for it. But a guy in his 20's punching a guy in his 70's in the face has to know the potentially lethal risk. I have no problem with some elderly, Jew-hating NOI scumbag not living anymore. I do have a problem if he/she's killed by a 20 something guy in retaliation for a racist insult.

I believe that's exactly what I said.

 

[plague311]

Ok, that was...weird.

That's how I've felt about the whole interaction. I'm glad we're on the same page now.

I've seen similar. Haven't we all? Eye-rolling and "oh yes sir" as he is shuffled out the door are reactions I see to tirades, usually. I mean, who cares?

More importantly: 89 cent for coffee at Dunkin? Really?

Nobody cared at all until after he "shuffled out the" drive thru and instead of leaving he parked his car, came in and started insulting people. Had he shuffled on home he'd still be around to bitch about his coffee, and Pujols would be at work.

 

[Thermal]

That's how I've felt about the whole interaction. I'm glad we're on the same page now.



Nobody cared at all until after he "shuffled out the" drive thru and instead of leaving he parked his car, came in and started insulting people. Had he shuffled on home he'd still be around to bitch about his coffee, and Pujols would be at work.

Right, and Pujols did the smart thing: told a worker to call the cops. At that point, it's a finger drumming waiting game. Unless you slowly come around the counter to deliberately get in punching range. Then do just that. That's where he drops the ball. It's some old coot. His words shouldn't have meant any more than a yapping old dog on the other side of a fence. I don't hop the fence to attack the dog, no matter how much I hate it's yapping. Its a ******* old dog.

 

[plague311]

Right, and Pujols did the smart thing: told a worker to call the cops. At that point, it's a finger drumming waiting game. Unless you slowly come around the counter to deliberately get in punching range. Then do just that. That's where he drops the ball. It's some old coot. His words shouldn't have meant any more than a yapping old dog on the other side of a fence. I don't hop the fence to attack the dog, no matter how much I hate it's yapping. Its a ******* old dog.

Great, so I'll log that away in my "Things Thermal Wouldn't Do" notebook I have.

I've never said that what Pujols did was right, ever. You can naysay it all you want, and you'd be right. Pujols shouldn't have punched him in the face.

The point I'm trying to make is that "certain posters" (is that a thin enough veil or is that only if we don't say it afterwards?) seem to have absolutely no issues with what the old man did. It's all fine, they don't even mention how his actions alone escalated the situation. He was responsible for every single thing that happened up to the point of being popped in the mouth. Yet, "certain posters" seem to steer far away from putting any responsibility on the old man at all. It was completely and entirely avoidable if the old man would have left when he was told to leave. Full stop.

 

[Belz...]

Yet, "certain posters" seem to steer far away from putting any responsibility on the old man at all.

"What was she wearing?" post incoming.

 

[Thermal]

Great, so I'll log that away in my "Things Thermal Wouldn't Do" notebook I have.

I've never said that what Pujols did was right, ever. You can naysay it all you want, and you'd be right. Pujols shouldn't have punched him in the face.

The point I'm trying to make is that "certain posters" (is that a thin enough veil or is that only if we don't say it afterwards?) seem to have absolutely no issues with what the old man did. It's all fine, they don't even mention how his actions alone escalated the situation. He was responsible for every single thing that happened up to the point of being popped in the mouth. Yet, "certain posters" seem to steer far away from putting any responsibility on the old man at all. It was completely and entirely avoidable if the old man would have left when he was told to leave. Full stop.

And we've been through this before. Actual facts are scarce. I don't really know what the old man said. So I'm holding back a bit. Provisionally, as I keep saying, I'm accepting he said something racial slurish. But im not going to stand here cheering his death or belittling him while not really knowing what went down. I don't take the words of guys like Zimmerman, either.

If the old man dropped the n-bomb on Pujols, in any context or for any reason, he's a ******* low life pig. That's still not as bad in my book as a senior citizen killer, which is an actual known fact.

You might have great faith in this level of pissant reporting. I don't, and make few apologies about it.

Eta: rereading, I get your point about the old man being responsible for escalation. He absolutely was, and absolutely should not have been running his mouth after being told to leave. Good general advice is to not let ya alligator mouth get you into things ya canary ass can't get you out of. But all falls under "douchey entitled-ass old customer", which is not a battery or death sentence.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And we've been through this before. Actual facts are scarce. I don't really know what the old man said. So I'm holding back a bit. Provisionally, as I keep saying, I'm accepting he said something racial slurish. But im not going to stand here cheering his death or belittling him while not really knowing what went down. I don't take the words of guys like Zimmerman, either.

If the old man dropped the n-bomb on Pujols, in any context or for any reason, he's a ******* low life pig. That's still not as bad in my book as a senior citizen killer, which is an actual known fact.

You might have great faith in this level of pissant reporting. I don't, and make few apologies about it.

Minor quibble, should read "was a low life pig". Past tense is appropriate because he's dead now.

 

[Thermal]

Minor quibble, should read "was a low life pig". Past tense is appropriate because he's dead now.

Motion to submit " is a dead ******* low life pig" in stead?

 

[plague311]

And we've been through this before. Actual facts are scarce. I don't really know what the old man said. So I'm holding back a bit. Provisionally, as I keep saying, I'm accepting he said something racial slurish. But im not going to stand here cheering his death or belittling him while not really knowing what went down. I don't take the words of guys like Zimmerman, either.

This is all irrelevant and doesn't address my statement at all. Take out the claim that there was a racist statement. Lets say he called him a bitch ass piece of ****. Nothing racist. So we can drop that completely now. That still doesn't change the fact that every single escalation up to, but not including, the crack to the jaw was the old man's fault. The blame lies nowhere else.

If the old man dropped the n-bomb on Pujols, in any context or for any reason, he's a ******* low life pig. That's still not as bad in my book as a senior citizen killer, which is an actual known fact.

Great. I, much like you, also separate the two. I think the DA made the best point when he said, "What the old man did was reprehensible, but it was legal", or some variation of that.

I think the old man is a low life for losing his **** over some coffee, not leaving when asked, and then going back in to shout at people for not catering to him up to his satisfaction. Made even worse that this obviously was a one-off if the man was a regular. It's petty, and pathetic.

You might have great faith in this level of pissant reporting. I don't, and make few apologies about it.

Duly noted.

Eta: rereading, I get your point about the old man being responsible for escalation. He absolutely was, and absolutely should not have been running his mouth after being told to leave. Good general advice is to not let ya alligator mouth get you into things ya canary ass can't get you out of. But all falls under "douchey entitled-ass old customer", which is not a battery or death sentence.

Except when it is...right? Again, I've never claimed the old man should have died. That's about the best I can do for him. Outside of that his death is little more than shrug worthy to me.

He decided to **** around, and he found out..as they say. I have little to no sympathy for either. His death and Pujols upcoming jail time are just unfortunate events.

 

[Thermal]

This is all irrelevant and doesn't address my statement at all. Take out the claim that there was a racist statement. Lets say he called him a bitch ass piece of ****. Nothing racist. So we can drop that completely now. That still doesn't change the fact that every single escalation up to, but not including, the crack to the jaw was the old man's fault. The blame lies nowhere else.



Great. I, much like you, also separate the two. I think the DA made the best point when he said, "What the old man did was reprehensible, but it was legal", or some variation of that.

I think the old man is a low life for losing his **** over some coffee, not leaving when asked, and then going back in to shout at people for not catering to him up to his satisfaction. Made even worse that this obviously was a one-off if the man was a regular. It's petty, and pathetic.



Duly noted.



Except when it is...right? Again, I've never claimed the old man should have died. That's about the best I can do for him. Outside of that his death is little more than shrug worthy to me.

He decided to **** around, and he found out..as they say. I have little to no sympathy for either. His death and Pujols upcoming jail time are just unfortunate events.

Well...ok, we are pretty much on the same page, barring a little over reading into each other.

A side note: I truly think droppjng the n-word on a black person should be viewed as more of a provocation than it is. Fighting Words should really be just short of excusing violent retaliation, if not actually excusing it. Literally asking for it and all. Just not against someone you so wildly outclass. A slap on the face would have been in the tolerable range for me, even though things could still turn south. But prob an argument for another thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Great. I, much like you, also separate the two. I think the DA made the best point when he said, "What the old man did was reprehensible, but it was legal", or some variation of that.

Nope trespassing is not legal. No matter how often people try to present it as legal. Think of the punch as part of a citizens arrest for trespassing.

 

[plague311]

A side note: I truly think droppjng the n-word on a black person should be viewed as more of a provocation than it is. Fighting Words should really be just short of excusing violent retaliation, if not actually excusing it. Literally asking for it and all. Just not against someone you so wildly outclass. A slap on the face would have been in the tolerable range for me, even though things could still turn south. But prob an argument for another thread.

It's one of the great mysteries to me. If you punch a PoC in the face, you'll face charges but just the norm. If you punch a PoC in the face while screaming the slur of that person's culture it escalates significantly. Yet just screaming the slur of that person to their face has no legal or criminal consequences at all. Maybe harassment if it goes on long enough. It's crazy.

Nope trespassing is not legal. No matter how often people try to present it as legal. Think of the punch as part of a citizens arrest for trespassing.

While I like your ambition to try and get Pujols out of trouble, that's just not the way the law works. Even if he tried the citizens arrest angle, you can't punch people in the face during their arrest either.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not complicated. Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is that Pujols was a violent criminal, full stop.

Another misuse of Occam's Razor....

"... a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

You claim "Pujols was a violent criminal" is the simplest explanation. IMO, it is "unknown phenomena", and if you disagree, then where is your evidence? Does he have a record of violence?