• 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.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

ponderingturtle said:
The guy didn't die but there was not a single charge against Buzz. Buzz was lucky he didn't hit his head wrong and die, but people seem to love focusing on the striking aspect like against Richard Spencer.

Too bad the guy was not a cop and this would be all nice and legal. But Dunkin Donuts staff are held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

ponderingturtle said:
People seemed convinced it is for Buzz. So maybe only if you have walked on the moon?
Click to expand...

Did the man who got punched press charges? It would be up to him if he wanted Buzz to go to jail. In this case, the man can't make that decision so the state makes it for him.

Again, the two aren't similar. I don't know why you're hellbent on comparing the two.

ETA: I decided to read up on the Aldrin situation.

Police either did not file, or dropped charges, based on Aldrin's lack of a prior criminal record, witness accounts of Sibrel's having drawn Aldrin to the hotel under false pretence and his aggressiveness before the punch, and Sibrel having declined to seek medical attention and having sustained "no visible injury"
Click to expand...

Sibrel asked Aldrin to come there under the guise of filming an interview for a Japanese children's show. Then poked him repeatedly with a bible, and harassed him.

So lets drop this now, they aren't even close to being in the same ballpark.
 
Last edited:
I heard a rumor that the deceased was a serial donut thief and was unfortunately killed by a citizen's arrest gone wrong. The DA should issue a letter explaining that this was perfectly legal self defense and then suppress the store surveillance video.
 
plague311 said:
Which situation is this? If it's a Zimmerman comparison there was a physical altercation. There wasn't one here.
Click to expand...

Exactly, didn't even chase the guy down with a gun and start the fight - the dead guy started it with him.

Clear case of Stand Your Ground, let Pujols go.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So he was trespassing and being threatening?
Click to expand...

There is no absolutely no indication in the article linked by Plague311 that either one of those things is true. If he was either trespassing or being threatening, it isn't mentioned in that article, nor in any other article I have read on the incident.
 
plague311 said:
I'll have to disagree there. I think they got it right:



He didn't intend to kill him, he intended to punch him in the face. It's not at all shocking that he killed him, I can say that much.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It sounds to me like the charge of "aggravated manslaughter" was probably created to cover exactly this sort of case, so it seems the appropriate charge.


Advice to readers: Don't punch someone, even if you are really, really, angry at them, and even if they are actually a bad person.
 
The train is moving right on schedule. Next stop: preemptively killing people you know posted something racist. Then, killing people you're pretty sure are racists. Three cheers for killing an old coot in broad daylight over a slur! It's a Brave New World.
 
"Following the victim's death, police obtained a warrant for Pujols' arrest on a charge of aggravated manslaughter of a person older than 65"

That's a specific category of crime there?
 
Thermal said:
The train is moving right on schedule. Next stop: preemptively killing people you know posted something racist. Then, killing people you're pretty sure are racists. Three cheers for killing an old coot in broad daylight over a slur! It's a Brave New World.
Click to expand...

We should skip the gulag phase and go straight to lining people up on a wall and shooting them. Saves us the cost of having to build a bunch of prison barracks out in rural Maine.
 
Meadmaker said:
There is no absolutely no indication in the article linked by Plague311 that either one of those things is true. If he was either trespassing or being threatening, it isn't mentioned in that article, nor in any other article I have read on the incident.
Click to expand...

He was asked to leave, therefor he was trespassing after that, by definition. That was the whole issue that got hashed out with the black guys trying to pee at a Starbucks before ordering. If you remain after being asked to leave you are trespassing it is really that simple.

And the haranguing with racial epithets seems like something that most would take as threatening.

They described the the behavior that meets the criteria for threatening and trespassing without naming it as such.
 
Thermal said:
The train is moving right on schedule. Next stop: preemptively killing people you know posted something racist. Then, killing people you're pretty sure are racists. Three cheers for killing an old coot in broad daylight over a slur! It's a Brave New World.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's not happening.
 
I mean really what's the discussion here? It would be great if everyone could just put their cards on the table and say what they mean.

Yeah it's not good that a 77 year old racists was killed.

It's not as bad as a 77 year old not-racists being killed.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I heard a rumor that the deceased was a serial donut thief and was unfortunately killed by a citizen's arrest gone wrong. The DA should issue a letter explaining that this was perfectly legal self defense and then suppress the store surveillance video.
Click to expand...


It's possible your intention might be to make the point that excessive violence is wrong, contra the arguments made by racists attempting to excuse the lethal violence directed against for instance Arbery, Floyd, and Taylor which you are echoing.

However, since with very few (well-known and habitual) exceptions, the people you're addressing here have been unanimous in their condemnation of the murderers of Arbery, Floyd, Taylor, and others, what's coming across reads far more like you're actually in favor of the violence as long as it's directed in the ways that you prefer.
 
Myriad said:
It's possible your intention might be to make the point that excessive violence is wrong, contra the arguments made by racists attempting to excuse the lethal violence directed against for instance Arbery, Floyd, and Taylor which you are echoing.

However, since with very few (well-known and habitual) exceptions, the people you're addressing here have been unanimous in their condemnation of the murderers of Arbery, Floyd, Taylor, and others, what's coming across reads far more like you're actually in favor of the violence as long as it's directed in the ways that you prefer.
Click to expand...

Nah, i'm mostly just messing around.

I find it very funny that a racist literally got killed over a dispute involving what was likely less than $10 of cafe food. Imagine making it through 77 years of life and getting snuffed out because you absolutely could not resist the urge to be racist to some uppity black cashier. Unreal lack of survival instincts, truly impressive.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
He was asked to leave, therefor he was trespassing after that, by definition. That was the whole issue that got hashed out with the black guys trying to pee at a Starbucks before ordering. If you remain after being asked to leave you are trespassing it is really that simple.

And the haranguing with racial epithets seems like something that most would take as threatening.

They described the the behavior that meets the criteria for threatening and trespassing without naming it as such.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe the accused can mount a self defense claim. Good luck with that.

As for trespassing, I don't think you will find many lawyers who accept your assessment of this incident as trespassing.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Nah, i'm mostly just messing around.

I find it very funny that a racist literally got killed over a dispute involving what was likely less than $10 of cafe food. Imagine making it through 77 years of life and getting snuffed out because you absolutely could not resist the urge to be racist to some uppity black cashier. Unreal lack of survival instincts, truly impressive.
Click to expand...


Okay, that's good to know. Maybe keep in mind how you typically react to people who are "just messing around" when joking or trolling about unjustified police or vigilante shootings of people of color.
 
Myriad said:
Okay, that's good to know. Maybe keep in mind how you typically react to people who are "just messing around" when joking or trolling about unjustified police or vigilante shootings of people of color.
Click to expand...

You pegged me. I have a potent animus towards racist people. If that's a character flaw, guilty as charged.

I'm not necessarily justifying the actions of the person that ended this man's whole existence, but I am pleased to see bad things happening to racists. It would have been better had he slipped on a banana peel or got hit by lightning because then there would be no downside to the death, but we have to take these things as they are, not as we want them to be.

The world would objectively be a better place if overt racists were afraid to out themselves like this. One punch at a time to a better tomorrow ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom