The arrogance of Black Families and the BLM Movement

[usmbguest5318]

Nobody's questioning that it does, but that anyone -- the attorney, the Davis parents, the customs agent or his parents, or the dead boy's friends' parents -- did so is also something you've not established as being extant with regard to the specific events and parties noted in the source article for this thread.

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

I also don't know why it's so difficult for you to tell that we simply haven't been given enough information to credibly conclude who was right and who was wrong, what was self-defense and what wasn't, etc. For now, I'm positing that it's due to much the same reason(s) that have prevented your intellectual acuity and general knowledge base from reaching the point where you distinguish between "there" and "their." In other words, because you just don't think or pay attention to much other than what you want to and makes you feel good doing. (And don't give me some "typo" crap. "There" is not a typo for "their.")

I get it now cuppy cakes - when you lose you resort to grammar police.

I would bet that the thugs had worse grammar - ebonics like.

I get it now cuppy cakes - when you lose you resort to grammar police.

My substantive response to your question in no way constitutes my "resorting to the grammar police." You wrote:

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

To that I responded:

I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

who did the informed police charge and detain and who did the release uncharged.

Oh, I see now. Charged therefore guilty is your way of seeing it. Well, as I've said before, that's not how U.S. .jurisprudence works.

Aside:
My remarks about your grammar -- to wit, the grammar aspect was but a foil for, not focus of, the substantive part of that paragraph -- issued of my wonderment at why you keep responding with remarks appropriate to someone who's dumber 'n' a box of rocks, and my, in turn, positing why that might be.

Now, however, I am certain you are just dumber than the day is long, and while I make time to post on USMB, I will not make time to engage with people who are as demonstrably dimwitted as you. Adieu.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Little Thug David, with his gang, assaulted, tried to rob, and pointed a weapon, at an individual.

If that is not Thug behavior - where do you live?

In terms of consequences the gang lost the self defense gun fight 4 to zero, And the gunman lots 3 to zero.

Therefore:
Raising a little Thuglet has consequences.

Q. E. D.

Extant is a good word - new to me

All that is well and good. I'm not disputing what "thug behavior" is. I am disputing your attirbution of "thug," thus thug behavior, to the dead by and his friends. For one to validly ascribe that moniker to those boys and to the Davis family's situation, one must accept as true the contested attestations of the customs agent.

No matter how much one may want to do just that, the fact remains that there is not one piece of information in the story, as presented by the linked content in the OP, that militates for one doing so. Because there is no such information of that nature, I return to the questions I initially asked, all of which solicit answers to whether you (or someone else) has information that is not presented in the news story linked in the OP. If you do, then share the information. If you don't, I certainly don't, then you, like me, have no rational basis for

• accepting as true the agent's assertion that the boys were robbing him, or
• accepting as true the boys' assertion (via their lawyer) that they were not robbing the agent.

The only means by which one can, based on the information thus shared, accept either side's attestations is emotional, not rational. Like it or not, our Constitution does not permit the charging, conviction and incarceration of anyone on the basis of one's feeling like they are guilty of a crime. Moreover, to the extent the boys have been charged with a crime, they are, by the 6th Amendment, due the presumption of innocence, and that is definitely not something you are according to them.

Therefore they boys were minding there own business, the agent shot two of them, struck himself on the head, had a throw down weapon to attribute to the little angels, and so on.

You think this likely, probable?

What is the opinion of the law enforcement professionals closer to the investigation that we will ever be?

Did I convict them in any crimes?
Am I am judge or jurist in this matter?
Am I not entitled to my opinion as you a re?

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

I also don't know why it's so difficult for you to tell that we simply haven't been given enough information to credibly conclude who was right and who was wrong, what was self-defense and what wasn't, etc. For now, I'm positing that it's due to much the same reason(s) that have prevented your intellectual acuity and general knowledge base from reaching the point where you distinguish between "there" and "their." In other words, because you just don't think or pay attention to much other than what you want to and makes you feel good doing. (And don't give me some "typo" crap. "There" is not a typo for "their.")

I get it now cuppy cakes - when you lose you resort to grammar police.

I would bet that the thugs had worse grammar - ebonics like.

I get it now cuppy cakes - when you lose you resort to grammar police.

My substantive response to your question in no way constitutes my "resorting to the grammar police." You wrote:

Therefore they boys were minding there own business

To that I responded:

I don't and cannot, just as you don't and cannot, know nor soundly deduce what the boys were doing. The same is so with regard to what the agent was doing. You and I can only know that the off duty customs agent shot and killed a boy, and we know that because he admits doing so. (I think one can safely assume that the agent would not admit to having done that had he not. But, hey, maybe there's some bizarre-ass conspiracy going on where the agent agreed to admit to killing the boy in return for something. I don't know if there is, but I know I'm not going down that far flung and wide ranging road called "Contrivance.") The news article doesn't give us enough information to, beyond that, know who did what, why and in what sequence.

who did the informed police charge and detain and who did the release uncharged.

Oh, I see now. Charged therefore guilty is your way of seeing it. Well, as I've said before, that's not how U.S. .jurisprudence works.

Aside:
My remarks about your grammar -- to wit, the grammar aspect was but a foil for, not focus of, the substantive part of that paragraph -- issued of my wonderment at why you keep responding with remarks appropriate to someone who's dumber 'n' a box of rocks, and my, in turn, positing why that might be.

Now, however, I am certain you are just dumber than the day is long, and while I make time to post on USMB, I will not make time to engage with people who are as demonstrably dimwitted as you. Adieu.

I understand charged is not guilty but it is the first step in the process for the two remaining thuglets.
Not so for the self defending agent.



Thanks for you're (I threw that typo in for you so you could get all wet again!) time cuppy cakes.

I was just about to tell you about my graduate degrees but I imagine you are running off to a support Kathy Griffin pride event or such.

The Smith thug and his two little thug buddies will not be able to make due to legal problems