Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the point of this? Really, all I got out of this is a man was beaten by some obnoxious teenagers and the police have no idea why.
Nothing about this is information anyone really needs to know since we literally can't learn anything from this.
Really?
Clearly you're buying the youtz and groups Newspeak with the "some obnoxious teens" description. You must've read the account referencing several teens--who beat this man to a pulp.
What should have been gleaned is that a gang of 40+ blacks attacked and viciously beat a white guy.
And the police have no idea why? Huh? Then why, I wonder, was "Anti-White" written on the initial police report (under nature of crime), then typed on a subsequent report?
you must be watching an entirely different video than I am. at what timestamps does he 'challenge' the mob not once, but twice?
I did not say he challenged them twice.
He was attacked. This is a crime.
He walks away.
He returns and it seems like he is challenging them.
The article agrees with what I say. Did you read it? On the video the commentator also says he walks away and returns (aroud 55sec mark).
Are you seeing it differently?
Obviously he is the victim, but my point is simply to say there is such thing as mutual combat, and when the court rules a case as such, you don't have rights to sue. This is something to remember before accepting a challenge when someone says "let's go to the parking lot". If you go, you have no right to sue the other guy. I think the law divides this case to two parts, the initial attack, where he is the victim, and the second where his legal standing is weaker.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 07-07-2015 at 08:05 AM..
^in order to challenge someone again, you have to have challenged them previously.
Well, I'm glad I clarified it for you. He returned once.
Feel free to disagree. If you don't think he returned, then so be it. I am simply trying to make a point about 'mutual combat' which a lot of people are not aware of.
Here is the problem. If you are attacked like that and you have a gun, you are justified to use it during the initial attack. However, if you leave and then come back and open fire, there is a good chance you'll be in legal trouble. Yes, I realize there were no guns involved here, but once you leave and come back, the legal situation may have changed.
It seems to me that the TEENS are Amish kids made up and on their way to put on a Minstrel show. Typical Amish thuggery....!
Could be - OR it's more likely that this was nothing more than a friendly hazing from the Greater Cincinnati welcoming commitee. There is nothing nicer than people of another race sharing a little physical fun with their brothers of another mother. Bonding is an important part of mending fences and sharing experiences. Ghandi said it himself: "Line up and take your beating, youwill be a stronger person and they will respect you"
Strength and respect were the goals of the young men of the welcoming committee!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
