Mississippi man beaten after he's warned restaurant wasn't safe for whites

[Unkotare]

Whatever...I made my point.

What was the black/white demographic where you live again? I missed your reply.

Yes you did indeed. That being, "I only read headlines, not articles."

You're wrong and you know it. Distractions don't work with me. Try another tack.

What was that black/white demographic where you live?
I must have missed it again...

That looks an awful lot like a "distraction," champ.

 

[Rotagilla]

Obviously, these four white kids showed bad judgment entering a McDonalds late at night that is filled with black men with their shirts off. So it cant be a hate crime.

/s This shit is beyond stupid

...Now I get it, you're discussing the 2nd article he linked, I'm talking about the first since that one related to the headline.

Haven't read the 2nd one.

Well, you already explained why evil white racist people shouldn't be allowed to eat in a restaurant peacefully.

Now explain why these kids shouldn't. Tell us how they deserved it..

and please tell me the black/white demographic where you live...

 

[Katzndogz]

The American negro has devolved and became feral due to the lack of family socialization within their community.

Because of that their DNA reverted back to a primitive state and the law of the jungle has replaced several generations of civilization.

blacks are not feral. Feral is used to mean raise in the wild and does not apply here.

According to Dictionary.com:

1.
existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2.
having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication:
a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
3.
of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Under definition 2, it is quite appropriate to refer to these violent individuals as feral, since they have indeed reverted to a wild state.

 

[Discombobulated]

For reasonable people here and not the racist trolls or the libtard trolls:

How was this not categorized as a hate crime?

I have to agree. How is this not a hate crime? How did authorities determine that race was not the motivating factor?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"You don't get in a man's face when his blood is up."
- "L.A. Confidential"

 

[JimBowie1958]

"David Knighten of West Point told AP earlier by phone that he and Weems had gone to a Waffle House early Saturday. He said a man waved him over outside the restaurant and told him politely that people were upset by the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and it wasn't a safe place for whites. When he went in, he said, Weems was inside and was arguing with other men.

Again, that 'argument' could have been anything from whitey says 'Brown deserved to get kilt' to 'hey, I wassin there! I didn't have nothin to do with it!'

Simply that an argument was observed says nothing about who was the aggressor and who was simply trying to get on with their business.

That the white guy left that restaurant, went to another one and was followed there, and then FORCED back out to get beaten I think shows who was the aggressor and who was the person trying avoid a confrontation.

YOU are making the assumption that the white guy was engaged with a USMB debate. I doubt that the guy said much more than 'I had nothing to do with it!'

And even if he did argue to defend the white cop, HOW DOES THAT MAKE THIS NOT A RACIAL ATTACK?

You still have not explained that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

According to Dictionary.com:

1.
existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2.
having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication:
a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
3.
of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Under definition 2, it is quite appropriate to refer to these violent individuals as feral, since they have indeed reverted to a wild state.

Not quite. Would have to specify a tense for that to work, like "blacks behaving feral." not "Blacks are feral."

 

[JimBowie1958]

"You don't get in a man's face when his blood is up."
- "L.A. Confidential"

Wow, justice by TV dialogue?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

For reasonable people here and not the racist trolls or the libtard trolls:

How was this not categorized as a hate crime?

I have to agree. How is this not a hate crime? How did authorities determine that race was not the motivating factor?

Welcome to the world of sanity, but I wonder how long you can stay...

 

[WinterBorn]

fuckit...white people who haven't already should arm yourselves. No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.

Mississippi man beaten after he s warned restaurant wasn t safe for whites witness says NOLA.com


No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.
Beaten to Death at McDonald 8217 s FrontPage Magazine

Enough is enough.

Guy you're writing was in fac armed with a .45. Should read your own articles.

"Police Chief Tim Brinkley did not immediately return a call Sunday from The AP.

"This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said in the press release. "We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.""

?he had a 45 but he was mentally disarmed since he didn't use it.

I would have been shooting and reloading after the first god damned punch.

In the linked article is stated, "However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people".

If you are in a crowd of 20 people who are pissed at you, pulling a gun would have been suicidal.

If you are talking about shooting after the first punch, you are talking about trying to draw, point and fire a pistol when your attacker is within 3 feet of you. If it is one on one, you MIGHT be able to back up enough to get the space necessary to pull it off. In the middle of a crowd, there is no way you could do it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He's a white man that knows he's supposed to take a beating. Otherwise, he's a racist.

Paybacks for 400 years of slavery....

400 licks upside the head should even things out.....for starters.

So now group guilt is OK?

What about people descended form those who fought to end slavery in the Civil War? Do we get a pass or are we guilty too simply because we are white?

According to the left being born white implies guilt.

And this is why whites need to organize to represent themselves in the reigning system of Identity Politics.

If you don't play, you and your children lose.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to Dictionary.com:

1.
existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2.
having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication:
a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
3.
of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Under definition 2, it is quite appropriate to refer to these violent individuals as feral, since they have indeed reverted to a wild state.

Not quite. Would have to specify a tense for that to work, like "blacks behaving feral." not "Blacks are feral."

If they have reverted to a wild state, they are feral. If they behave like ferals they are feral.

 

[JimBowie1958]

fuckit...white people who haven't already should arm yourselves. No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.

Mississippi man beaten after he s warned restaurant wasn t safe for whites witness says NOLA.com


No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.
Beaten to Death at McDonald 8217 s FrontPage Magazine

Enough is enough.

Guy you're writing was in fac armed with a .45. Should read your own articles.

"Police Chief Tim Brinkley did not immediately return a call Sunday from The AP.

"This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said in the press release. "We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.""

?he had a 45 but he was mentally disarmed since he didn't use it.

I would have been shooting and reloading after the first god damned punch.

In the linked article is stated, "However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people".

If you are in a crowd of 20 people who are pissed at you, pulling a gun would have been suicidal.

If you are talking about shooting after the first punch, you are talking about trying to draw, point and fire a pistol when your attacker is within 3 feet of you. If it is one on one, you MIGHT be able to back up enough to get the space necessary to pull it off. In the middle of a crowd, there is no way you could do it.

No, dude, there are tactics for shooting within a crowd. Not going to essplain it here, PM me if you want to know.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Again, that 'argument' could have been anything from whitey says 'Brown deserved to get kilt' to 'hey, I wassin there! I didn't have nothin to do with it!'

Simply that an argument was observed says nothing about who was the aggressor and who was simply trying to get on with their business.

That the white guy left that restaurant, went to another one and was followed there, and then FORCED back out to get beaten I think shows who was the aggressor and who was the person trying avoid a confrontation.

YOU are making the assumption that the white guy was engaged with a USMB debate. I doubt that the guy said much more than 'I had nothing to do with it!'

And even if he did argue to defend the white cop, HOW DOES THAT MAKE THIS NOT A RACIAL ATTACK?

You still have not explained that.

Am only offering opinions based upon the facts the article specified. It doesn't say it was 20 black guys and he was the only white guy. Implication police with more facts than the article mentions presumedly reference it as specificly not a hate crime and just "an aggravted assault where somebody got hurt" suggests to me a mixed ethnicity crowd beat on him.

You're the one making assumptions of his innocence for being beat up. I'm making no assumptions at all beyond speculating on why the police would be so clear-cut it wasn't a hate crime.

 

[JimBowie1958]

According to Dictionary.com:

1.
existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2.
having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication:
a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
3.
of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Under definition 2, it is quite appropriate to refer to these violent individuals as feral, since they have indeed reverted to a wild state.

Not quite. Would have to specify a tense for that to work, like "blacks behaving feral." not "Blacks are feral."

If they have reverted to a wild state, they are feral. If they behave like ferals they are feral.

No, to use 'like' means it is not a case of 'is'.

 

[WinterBorn]

fuckit...white people who haven't already should arm yourselves. No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.

Mississippi man beaten after he s warned restaurant wasn t safe for whites witness says NOLA.com


No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.
Beaten to Death at McDonald 8217 s FrontPage Magazine

Enough is enough.

Guy you're writing was in fac armed with a .45. Should read your own articles.

"Police Chief Tim Brinkley did not immediately return a call Sunday from The AP.

"This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said in the press release. "We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.""

?he had a 45 but he was mentally disarmed since he didn't use it.

I would have been shooting and reloading after the first god damned punch.

In the linked article is stated, "However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people".

If you are in a crowd of 20 people who are pissed at you, pulling a gun would have been suicidal.

If you are talking about shooting after the first punch, you are talking about trying to draw, point and fire a pistol when your attacker is within 3 feet of you. If it is one on one, you MIGHT be able to back up enough to get the space necessary to pull it off. In the middle of a crowd, there is no way you could do it.

No, dude, there are tactics for shooting within a crowd. Not going to essplain it here, PM me if you want to know.

I know there are tactics for shooting in a crowd. But I doubt very seriously they would work when the crowd is actively attacking you. There would have been 4 or 5 people within arms reach of you. Even of you shot one of them, the others would nail you before you fired again. Or, even worse, you would have been shot with your own gun.

The Tueller Drill ring any bells? One person with a knife and you with a gun in a holster, if the other person is within 20 feet you are going to get stabbed. I am betting the crowd was a LOT closer than 20 feet.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, that 'argument' could have been anything from whitey says 'Brown deserved to get kilt' to 'hey, I wassin there! I didn't have nothin to do with it!'

Simply that an argument was observed says nothing about who was the aggressor and who was simply trying to get on with their business.

That the white guy left that restaurant, went to another one and was followed there, and then FORCED back out to get beaten I think shows who was the aggressor and who was the person trying avoid a confrontation.

YOU are making the assumption that the white guy was engaged with a USMB debate. I doubt that the guy said much more than 'I had nothing to do with it!'

And even if he did argue to defend the white cop, HOW DOES THAT MAKE THIS NOT A RACIAL ATTACK?

You still have not explained that.

Am only offering opinions based upon the facts the article specified. It doesn't say it was 20 black guys and he was the only white guy. Implication police with more facts than the article mentions presumedly reference it as specificly not a hate crime and just "an aggravted assault where somebody got hurt" suggests to me a mixed ethnicity crowd beat on him.

You're the one making assumptions of his innocence for being beat up. I'm making no assumptions at all beyond speculating on why the police would be so clear-cut it wasn't a hate crime.

I think it is fair to interpolate that since the guy outside warned the two whites to not go in because they were white, that therefore there were no whites already in the restaurant.

Now which is a more likely situation; the crowd that pursued had whites in the group too, or that this is just one more case where LE decides to not add a hate crime to their stat sheet?

 

[JimBowie1958]

fuckit...white people who haven't already should arm yourselves. No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.

Mississippi man beaten after he s warned restaurant wasn t safe for whites witness says NOLA.com


No more incidents like this should be allowed to happen.
Beaten to Death at McDonald 8217 s FrontPage Magazine

Enough is enough.

Guy you're writing was in fac armed with a .45. Should read your own articles.

"Police Chief Tim Brinkley did not immediately return a call Sunday from The AP.

"This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said in the press release. "We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.""

?he had a 45 but he was mentally disarmed since he didn't use it.

I would have been shooting and reloading after the first god damned punch.

In the linked article is stated, "However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people".

If you are in a crowd of 20 people who are pissed at you, pulling a gun would have been suicidal.

If you are talking about shooting after the first punch, you are talking about trying to draw, point and fire a pistol when your attacker is within 3 feet of you. If it is one on one, you MIGHT be able to back up enough to get the space necessary to pull it off. In the middle of a crowd, there is no way you could do it.

No, dude, there are tactics for shooting within a crowd. Not going to essplain it here, PM me if you want to know.

I know there are tactics for shooting in a crowd. But I doubt very seriously they would work when the crowd is actively attacking you. There would have been 4 or 5 people within arms reach of you. Even of you shot one of them, the others would nail you before you fired again. Or, even worse, you would have been shot with your own gun.

If you know the tactics then you would know why they work.

When the crowd began the attack, most likely only the few nearest the two victims were swinging or trying to grapple them. Most likely they were just swinging and kicking. That gives plenty of opportunity to shoot.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the linked article is stated, "However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people".

If you are in a crowd of 20 people who are pissed at you, pulling a gun would have been suicidal.

If you are talking about shooting after the first punch, you are talking about trying to draw, point and fire a pistol when your attacker is within 3 feet of you. If it is one on one, you MIGHT be able to back up enough to get the space necessary to pull it off. In the middle of a crowd, there is no way you could do it.

Gotta disagree with there mate. Because this situation is relatively common, many against 1 with a weapon, there are lessonas and tactics to deploy your sidearm to meet this tactical problem.

"Wow! How do you shoot like that?" She says to the Secret Service agent after he puts 6 shots from a revolver into literally one hole.

Replying calmly, "They give us lessons."

"The West Wing"

 

[Rotagilla]

"You don't get in a man's face when his blood is up."
- "L.A. Confidential"

Wow, justice by TV dialogue?

roflmao

Very revealing..good catch..It's all theory and hypotheticals to people who don't have to live it.
Those with the least proximity to blacks are invariably the "experts" on race relations.