• 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

Belz... said:
Why? "I didn't call you stupid. I said you're behaving stupidly" has never been convincing. It's just a way to call people stupid without actually saying it. Same here.
Click to expand...

Because normally sane people can lose their rag and do one off thuggish actions.

So while the act is thuggish, the person without further evidence, can just be a dumb **** with a short temper who needs to grow the
Edited by xjx388: 
Don't use abbreviations to evade the auto-censor.
up.

Which in this case will be easy given he gets to hang out in one room for about 20 years thinking about it.

Having said that, I have no idea of his background like everyone else, and maybe he is just a thug.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Belz... said:
Nobody ever calls something like that a "thuggish action". You're paying lip service to the notion that calling him a thug was a bad idea while continuing to do so under false pretense.
Click to expand...

I'm not paying lip service to anything.

But if it makes you personally feel better I can keep with the thing I said and then changed after thinking about it, that you don't accept

He is a thug.

Does that make you ffeel better?

Not that you and half the people on here seem to actually know what thug means
 
cullennz said:
But if it makes you personally feel better I can keep with the thing I said and then changed after thinking about it, that you don't accept

He is a thug.

Does that make you ffeel better?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make me feel anything either way, but as I suspected, it sure makes you feel better to say it.

Of course now you have to accept whate comes with it.
 
Belz... said:
It doesn't make me feel anything either way, but as I suspected, it sure makes you feel better to say it.

Of course now you have to accept whate comes with it.
Click to expand...

This post is just for you as everyone else seems to understand what I have said.

But again to make you personally feel better.

All good. I am whatever you think I am in your head.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Several have suggested that. I disagree with that entire concept though, which is a rather large part of this discussion - whether or not really, really mean words should be seen to justify physical violence in response.
Click to expand...

People from different countries have different perspectives. You regard calling someone the n-word to be just using "really, really mean words", I call it "racial vilification".

In many parts of Europe, racial vilification is a criminal offence. In this country, our government is in the process of taking the hate speech statutes in the 1993 Human Rights Act, and putting them into the 1961 Crimes act. Racial vilification would then carry the punishments of a fine up to $50,000, or a maximum of three years imprisonment, putting hate speech punishment in the same league as making a false declaration or assault with intent to injure.

If this Cook scumbag did in this country what he did Dunkin' Donuts, it would cost him a lot of money and/or jail time.
 
smartcooky said:
People from different countries have different perspectives. You regard calling someone the n-word to be just using "really, really mean words", I call it "racial vilification".

In many parts of Europe, racial vilification is a criminal offence. In this country, our government is in the process of taking the hate speech statutes in the 1993 Human Rights Act, and putting them into the 1961 Crimes act. Racial vilification would then carry the punishments of a fine up to $50,000, or a maximum of three years imprisonment, putting hate speech punishment in the same league as making a false declaration or assault with intent to injure.

If this Cook scumbag did in this country what he did Dunkin' Donuts, it would cost him a lot of money and/or jail time.
Click to expand...

So do you think this is justification for the worker to punch the bloke 50 years older in the head?

Which is kind of more the point.
 
smartcooky said:
Is that what you gleaned from my post? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes

I think most people know that the n word has different consequences depending on location.

But this is kind of irrelevant to the thread.

You obviously think it isn't. So is this because it is some sort of justification or cause for leniency when this bloke gets jailed for hitting the dude 50 years older than him in the head?

It is a genuine question, not taking the **** or anything.
 
cullennz said:
Yes

I think most people know that the n word has different consequences depending on location.

But this is kind of irrelevant to the thread.

You obviously think it isn't. So is this because it is some sort of justification or cause for leniency when this bloke gets jailed for hitting the dude 50 years older than him in the head?

It is a genuine question, not taking the **** or anything.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm just not seeing how explaining to Emily's Cat that my perception of the seriousness of using the n-word apparently differs from hers, somehow translates to me thinking Pujols was justified hitting the old guy.

Let me make this plain for you...

1. The fact that I regard Cook as a vile, kiddie fiddling, racist POS does not mean I think Pujols was justified in hitting him.

2. The fact that I can understand why Pujols was angry, does not mean I agree with his violent reaction.

3. The fact that I don't I agree with Pujuls' violent actions does not mean I am the least bit sorry that Cook is dead. He was a paedofile, one of the worst types of scumbag criminal in existence.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Dead dude has been identified.

One sick ****** up piece of **** tbf, so no great loss from that side of things.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2021/05/25/victim-in-fatal-tampa-dunkin-punch-case-identified/

Edit:



Edited by zooterkin: 
Edit for rule 10.
Don't use abbreviations to evade the autocensor.
Click to expand...

Since his sexual encounters were with men over the age of 16 (according to this article) his relationships would be legal in the UK and NZ. He would not be a 'pedo'. If he was filming for commercial purposes then it would be a crime as participating in pornography has an age of consent of 18. It does not appear from the description that the filming was covert nor commercial. In Florida age of consent is 18 so he clearly committed a criminal act in Florida. But posters from NZ or UK should be aware that what he did does not sound like it would be a crime in their home nation (excluding NI?).

It sounds like the deceased was gay. If the killer had used a word such as 'faggot' would this turn what happened into a hate crime? Even gay men deserve justice.

As the article says the correct place to take into account the level of provocation is the trial.
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how explaining to Emily's Cat that my perception of the seriousness of using the n-word apparently differs from hers, somehow translates to me thinking Pujols was justified hitting the old guy.

Let me make this plain for you...

1. The fact that I regard Cook as a vile, kiddie fiddling, racist POS does not mean I think Pujols was justified in hitting him.

2. The fact that I can understand why Pujols was angry, does not mean I agree with his violent reaction.

3. The fact that I don't I agree with Pujuls' violent actions does not mean I am the least bit sorry that Cook is dead. He was a paedofile, one of the worst types of scumbag criminal in existence.
Click to expand...

Thanks

Pretty much my opinion.

:thumbsup:
 
Should have added if it turns out the worker was one of the scumbags victims (which is unlikely), it would justify it to me.

Hence the losing the thinking it was a scummy act thing.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
One shotted a racist child molester/pornographer? Hell, the city should be throwing him a parade, not putting him in prison.
Click to expand...

Lithrael said:
Exactly nobody at all in the thread thinks Pujols should not face the legal consequences of his actions.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

I see a lot of attitude change over the past few days. It's mildly interesting to me, but this story really isn't. It's a slam dunk. Everything people here are debating means nothing in this case.
 
mgidm86 said:
If you say so.

I see a lot of attitude change over the past few days. It's mildly interesting to me, but this story really isn't. It's a slam dunk. Everything people here are debating means nothing in this case.
Click to expand...

But it's never just about the case. This would be the most boring-ass forum on the planet if we didn't play around with the ideas that come up, using the OP as a jumping off point.

I mean, what would we talk about here? Justified punch or not? Not. All pretty much in agreement. The sidebars and tangents are where the interesting stuff happens.
 
Planigale said:
Since his sexual encounters were with men over the age of 16 (according to this article)
Click to expand...

Not according to his criminal record

https://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/FL61440/Vonelle-Cook.html

Offense/Statute: Abuse Of Child,eng Sex Perfm; F.s. 827.071(2)
Adjudication Date: 07 April 2008

Offense/Statute: Lewd, Lascivious Batt Sex W/victim 12-15 Years Old; F.s. 800.04(4)(a)
Adjudication Date: 07 April 2008

Offense/Statute: Poss Of Photo/picture Showing Sexual Performance By A Child; F.s. 827.071(5)
Adjudication Date: 07 April 2008

Offense/Statute: Sexual Performance By A Child(possess Photo Or Picture); F.s. 827.071(4)
Adjudication Date: 07 April 2008

Offense/Statute: Unlawful Sexual Activity With Certain Minors 16/17 Yr Old; F.s. 794.05(1)
Adjudication Date: 07 April 2008


ETA: And just to be clear, this is not a one-off 13 years ago

19 May 2006
893136A-DRUG2102 (FT) POSSESSION OF CANNABIS
893131A-DRUG2300 (FT) POSSESSION OF CANNABIS WITH INTENT TO SELL OR
893136A-DRUG1101 (FT) POSSESSION OF COCAINE
893147-DRUG8100 (MF) POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
8470112-LEWD5001 (MS) POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL
8470112-LEWD5001 (MS) POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL
827033B-CHAB2010 (FS) CHILD NEGLECT
827041-CHAB3002 (MF) CONTRIB TO DELINQUENCY OR DEPENDENCY OF CHILD
8470112-LEWD5001 (MS) POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATER

21 June 2006
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
8270714-CHAB6050 (FS) POSSESSION OF PHOTOS DEPICT SEX WITH CHILD TO
8270715-CHAB6000 (FT) POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
8270712-CHAB6025 (FS) USE OF A CHILD IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE
8270712-CHAB6025 (FS) USE OF A CHILD IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE

28 September 2006
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
7940118B - RAPE5010 (FF) SEXUAL BATTERY FAMILIAL OR CUSTODIAL AUTHORITY
800044A-LEWD1450 (FS) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY (ENGAGE)
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR

19 July 2007
8270712-CHAB6025 (FS) USE OF A CHILD IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR

6 August 2008
8270712-CHAB6025 (FS) USE OF A CHILD IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
794051-RAPE8005 (FS) UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR

(Sorry about the all caps... its how it copy/pasted and I can't be bothered retyping it all)

This guy has a criminal record going back to 1993. he's been in front of the court 40 times in 27 years

Burglary
Rape
Statutory rape
Petty theft
Dealing in stolen property
Third degree grand theft
DUI (incl causing property damage)
DWSL
Possession of child pornography
Possession of obscene material
Drug and Paraphernalia possession

How the hell was he not in the slammer!!

Use the search
https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/caseSearch.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom