[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Dubyamn said:
So in your world burning something isn't doing it wrong. But I don't really see how your example is translating into this situation where you believe that he turned the confrontation from an awkward exchange to a confrontation that got the police involved and lost Karen her job. Which is less burned the spaghetti messed up and more outright threatened the Karen.
Click to expand...
I was giving a example of a situation I myself experienced in here I messed up on something without doing anything "wrong". We are not talking about the definition of wrong like it was an answer on a pop quiz, we are talking about wrong as in "an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action." Maybe you don't understand what "wrong" means in this context? Because you seem to be getting more caught up in my words rather then my substance.
And he didn't continue to confrontation. She did.
Click to expand...
Attempting to bring yourself into the situation with her dog is a continuation. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. If someone I was in a disagreement with attempted to course my kids towards him, that would be stroking the fire of conflict as there is no reason my kids need to be involved in our disagreement. I don't believe me pointing that out means I am on her side on this, only that the context of the situation changes.
So yes 100% factual like the rest of social media. Exactly how it went down with no possibility of him stretching the truth.
Click to expand...
Usually if people stretch the truth, they would do such in their favor. It would be odd for him to stretch the truth by adding a possible negative, questionable context to this situation. Maybe that's just me though.
 
Last edited:
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

AshburnerX said:
So you think her response was appropriate? You know... calling the police and trying to get this man killed for daring to stand up to her in public. These aren't children, these were leash-less dogs. You don't get to kill people for killing your dogs, which wasn't even what happened, and escalating it to children in your example in inflammatory. Not only was no one in danger until Karen acted as she did, the only reason there was trouble was because she acted as she did to begin with!

It still really sounds like you're reaching for a reason why Karen shouldn't be in a cell right now. You're looking for the "gotcha" for this black man, instead of accepting that whatever (relatively minor) thing he did, she intentionally tried to bring him harm for no other reason than he dared to speak back to her to begin with. If her plan had succeeded, would you still be saying this?

A black person should not be afraid to challenge threats to their mere existence in public. That is what this was... and if the roles had been reversed, this man and the dogs would likely be dead right now and it'd be on FOX News 24/7 as proof that black people are dangerous animals that deserve to be put down.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't actually read anything I said, so I will let you go back and actually read what I said before I decide to continue any conversation with you.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Fun Size said:
He said something that could possibly be construed as a threat while being black. In America, that's considered messing up.
Click to expand...
To be fair, race is irrelevant when it comes to this. If someone attempted to do something with my dog after what started as a disagreement, and told me "I was not going to like it" I wouldn't care if he was black, white, or purple. He isn't going to touch my dog, and he messed up by even implying it. I just am smart enough not to then attempt to get the person assassinated by cop because of it, a mistake she is going to pay for, rightfully.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

I do think you're both using different definitions of "doing something wrong". One is "doing something the wrong way", the other is "doing something that is Wrong".
 
D

Dubyamn

ScytheRexx said:
I was giving a example of a situation I myself experienced in here I messed up on something without doing anything "wrong". We are not talking about the definition of wrong like it was an answer on a pop quiz, we are talking about wrong as in "an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action." Maybe you don't understand what "wrong" means in this context? Because you seem to be getting more caught up in my words rather then my substance.
Click to expand...
I mean your entire substance is "He didn't do anything wrong but he messed up and caused the confrontation to escalate when he outright threatened the dog and caused that Karen to reasonably believe she and her dog where about to have their necks snapped."

We can talk about that substance if you'd like.

Attempting to bring yourself into the situation with her dog is a continuation. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. If someone I was in a disagreement with attempted to course my kids towards him, that would be stroking the fire of conflict as there is no reason my kids need to be involved in our disagreement. I don't believe me pointing that out means I am on her side on this, only that the context of the situation changes.
Click to expand...
Dog was the entire confrontation. There literally is no disagreement without the dog. Her refusing to leash her dog as required by law was literally the only thing continuing the disagreement.

And maybe you aren't on her side in this but so far you've claimed that he continued and escalated the confrontation to the levels it reached so I'm having trouble really squaring that with your claim that he didn't do anything wrong.

Usually if people stretch the truth, they would do such in their favor. It would be odd for him to stretch the truth by adding a possible negative, questionable context to this situation. Maybe that's just me though.
Click to expand...
So your default is that it's definitely exactly true just because you don't know why somebody would do it.
 
Fun Size

Fun Size

ScytheRexx said:
To be fair, race is irrelevant when it comes to this. If someone attempted to do something with my dog after what started as a disagreement, and told me "I was not going to like it" I wouldn't care if he was black, white, or purple. He isn't going to touch my dog, and he messed up by even implying it. I just am smart enough not to then attempt to get the person assassinated by cop because of it, a mistake she is going to pay for, rightfully.
Click to expand...
I would disagree based on her response. Do you think she would have told me as a white man that she was calling the police to say that a white man was threatening her? Nope. She might have said that she was calling the police, but by bringing up his race she made it clear that this was part of what she was responding to.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

I think what people are missing here is that I am not trying to justify her actions. I am trying to add context to why she may have taken it too far. So many paint it as "This black guy existed so she wanted him dead" rather then "This woman freaked out because she may have thought this guy was going to kill her dog and then took it way, way too far."

If two men get into a fight and both start beating the shit out of each other, and then one stabs the other through the neck with a glass bottle, I ain't going to say it was not murder because "the other guy was throwing punches too". Murder is murder, but I want the context that there was at least a fight, rather then a dude sitting around when all of a sudden a glass shard is through his neck. The context is different.

All I am trying to bring is context that both sides made some mistakes in this, and she was the one that absolutely took it too far once the whole thing was said and done. He isn't to blame for her trying to get him killed by cop, but I still want truth in context, because without context we can't understand reason, and without reason we can't move past all this shit. We argue all the time on here that truth matters, so why are you guys attacking me for wanting to at least understand some of the truth?
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Fun Size said:
I would disagree based on her response. Do you think she would have told me as a white man that she was calling the police to say that a white man was threatening her? Nope. She might have said that she was calling the police, but by bringing up his race she made it clear that this was part of what she was responding to.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about response following it. I DO believe her response she carried out in the end was because he was black. There is no other way to see that. I am just saying that everything leading up to that isn't as black and white.
 
D

Dubyamn

ScytheRexx said:
I think what people are missing here is that I am not trying to justify her actions. I am trying to add context to why she may have taken it too far. So many paint it as "This black guy existed so she wanted him dead" rather then "This woman freaked out because she may have thought this guy was going to kill her dog and then took it way, way too far."

If two men get into a fight and both start beating the shit out of each other, and then one stabs the other through the neck with a glass bottle, I ain't going to say it was not murder because "the other guy was throwing punches too". Murder is murder, but I want the context that there was at least a fight, rather then a dude sitting around when all of a sudden a glass shard is through his neck. The context is different.

All I am trying to bring is context that both sides made some mistakes in this, and she was the one that absolutely took it too far once the whole thing was said and done. He isn't to blame for her trying to get him killed by cop, but I still want truth in context, because without context we can't understand reason, and without reason we can't move past all this shit. We argue all the time on here that truth matters, so why are you guys attacking me for wanting to at least understand some of the truth?
Click to expand...
Except you haven't really added any context we already knew there was a verbal altercation before the recording started.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Dubyamn said:
Except you haven't really added any context we already knew there was a verbal altercation before the recording started.
Click to expand...
However, did you know he attempted to course the dog to him? That adds a lot of context outside of "Guy tells her to put leash on dog, then she tried to get him killed by cop".
 
Fun Size

Fun Size

ScytheRexx said:
However, did you know he attempted to course the dog to him?
Click to expand...
Serious question then: If she's going to break the law, and he asks her to stop and she doesn't, then what? I see three options. Call the police, at which point she gets away with it. Shoot the dog, which is a bit drastic. Or catch the dog and take it to the cops or pound, which is reasonable because it's off leash. To be clear, no matter what he did besides letting her get away with is it something that she wasn't going to like. That's why it's hard for me to take seriously as a threat outside of her overreacting to being called out for breaking the law.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Exactly, @Dubyamn . She tried to get him killed for a situation she caused and she escalated, while nothing he did could be reasonably construed as worth her response. She was exercising her white womanliness, because she felt she was entitled to ignore the law in a way that this black man couldn't and then she felt justified to threaten this man's life when he stood up to her. She could have taken her dogs to the appropriate area of the park and none of this would have happened. She could have easily leashed them as well... in fact, had she followed the law, her dogs couldn't have coursed to him.

The only context worth examining here is her blatant racism. She valued her ability to live a consequence free life as an irresponsible white woman over this man's life, period. And now she's been reminded that human lives have value.
 
Fun Size

Fun Size

I mean, he did say that's what he did, but I don't see it as being construed as a threat outside of the Karening. If someone made a comment like that and tried to get my dog, I'd be pissed, but then that wouldn't happen because I don't run my dogs off leash, and if I was and someone asked me to stop because it's illegal I would do so.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Fun Size said:
Serious question then: If she's going to break the law, and he asks her to stop and she doesn't, then what? I see three options. Call the police, at which point she gets away with it. Shoot the dog, which is a bit drastic. Or catch the dog and take it to the cops or pound, which is reasonable because it's off leash. To be clear, no matter what he did besides letting her get away with is it something that she wasn't going to like. That's why it's hard for me to take seriously as a threat outside of her overreacting to being called out for breaking the law.
Click to expand...
You bring up a good point without putting words in my mouth, so thank you for that.

Again, I was only implying what she likely felt and I feel that adds context to scene as a whole. In the end, I don't know anything other then how she acts in the video. She was wrong. I never argued that as much as some people here like to think I am. She would have been wrong either way, but I don't like looking at the world in black and white hues. We don't grow when we can't look at all the steps that lead to the actions that effect us.

I can only answer what I would do in his shoes, and likely would tell her she should put on a leash, and if she does not, I would walk away. I am not a policeman, nor do I feel I have a right to detain and enforce laws. I know you didn't give me that option, but it's the one I would have done.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Tress said:
There's a reason why "Karen" has become a label. There are a lot of people who are entitled and willing to lie/cheat/be racist to justify it. And they're not terribly bright, because if they were... they wouldn't act like this in the first place.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Miami woman who claimed two Black men came into her house and abducted her autistic son, but then police found video footage that showed her pushing her son into a canal to drown?

--Patrick
 
D

Dubyamn

Ravenpoe said:
This is a really pointless argument, is quarantine still getting to you guys?
Click to expand...
Did just have a long argument stemming from what doing something wrong means and it was by far the most exciting part of my late afternoon.

So no everything is going pretty much as it always does
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Ravenpoe said:
This is a really pointless argument, is quarantine still getting to you guys?
Click to expand...
If I am being honest I don't even know why it was an argument. I agree with the root cause and the final outcomes like anyone else here, and agree her calling the police for some assassination by cop is racist. I just felt I had to argue because I was being attacked for even implying that he may have also stroked the building fire, even if only a single breath in a raging monsoon that was ms. chokes her own dog.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I actually agree with @ScytheRexx on this one. If the dude would have said this to me I'd have immediately been on the defensive.

ME: Ma'am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on the leash at all times. The sign is right there.
HER: The dog runs are closed. He needs his exercise.
ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.
HER: It's too dangerous.
ME: Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.
HER: What's that?
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
Click to expand...
I mean, what WAS he intending to do? Say the dog HAD come to him. What was his plan of action? Hold the dog illegally until she put the leash on it? Take the dog? Simply pet the dog? His words don't say, "Hey, I want to pet your dog." His words say, You're not going to like what I do, so come here, doggy!

Like @ScytheRexx I agree she took the wrong tact after the filming started (and isn't it always the things BEFORE the filming starts that seems to change the nature of the whole thing?) but were I her I would have felt that he was being threatening. "You're not going to like it" and "we'll see about that" IS THREATENING SPEECH! Bringing his race into it is wrong, but he's in the wrong as well.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
I actually agree with @ScytheRexx on this one. If the dude would have said this to me I'd have immediately been on the defensive.



I mean, what WAS he intending to do? Say the dog HAD come to him. What was his plan of action? Hold the dog illegally until she put the leash on it? Take the dog? Simply pet the dog? His words don't say, "Hey, I want to pet your dog." His words say, You're not going to like what I do, so come here, doggy!

Like @ScytheRexx I agree she took the wrong tact after the filming started (and isn't it always the things BEFORE the filming starts that seems to change the nature of the whole thing?) but were I her I would have felt that he was being threatening. "You're not going to like it" and "we'll see about that" IS THREATENING SPEECH! Bringing his race into it is wrong, but he's in the wrong as well.
Click to expand...
Uh oh, look out, you're not a 100% kool-aid grade ally to the struggle any more, prepare to be thrown into the pit with the rest of us neo nazis.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Uh oh, look out, you're not a 100% kool-aid grade ally to the struggle any more, prepare to be thrown into the pit with the rest of us neo nazis.
Click to expand...
It's childishness and being unable to understand that there can be nuance that caused me to say this was a dumb argument. But we know you're in that pit for entirely different reasons :p
 
D

Dubyamn

Dave said:
I actually agree with @ScytheRexx on this one. If the dude would have said this to me I'd have immediately been on the defensive.



I mean, what WAS he intending to do? Say the dog HAD come to him. What was his plan of action? Hold the dog illegally until she put the leash on it? Take the dog? Simply pet the dog? His words don't say, "Hey, I want to pet your dog." His words say, You're not going to like what I do, so come here, doggy!
Click to expand...
Just tossing a wild idea out here. He was probably going to give the dog a treat. But I can see how he probably had nefarious intentions that he then posted to the entire world.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
It's childishness and being unable to understand that there can be nuance that caused me to say this was a dumb argument. But we know you're in that pit for entirely different reasons :p
Click to expand...
But apparently it doesn't matter, given SR's treatment. If you're not constantly grunting for the blood of all non-democrats (and even some of the less in-line democrats), you're obviously every bit the scum GasBandit is.

In other "news"

(click to play, stupid imgur)

 
Bubble181

Bubble181

If it was a black man with his attack dogs running loose and a white girl who came by and felt threatened, the whole conversation here and in the media would be different, and we all know it, and that's the main problem.
The loose dog would probably have been put down as it was aggressive, etc etc
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Different question - and I mean this as an actual question, I don't know the answer.
Suppose the guy hadn't been a dog lover who randomly wanted to give dog treats away, but was instead absolutely caninophobic. Plenty of people are afraid or very afraid of dogs. At least in Belgium, a dog is considered a weapon for insurance and legal purposes. If he had, in fact, said "ma'am, I feel I credibly threatened by your dog being off the leash and if he comes one step closer I'm going to shoot him" - would he have been in his right?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
But apparently it doesn't matter, given SR's treatment. If you're not constantly grunting for the blood of all non-democrats (and even some of the less in-line democrats), you're obviously every bit the scum GasBandit is.
Click to expand...
... do we even know her political leanings? I mean, entitled white people came from both ends of the spectrum.

Bubble181 said:
Different question - and I mean this as an actual question, I don't know the answer.
Suppose the guy hadn't been a dog lover who randomly wanted to give dog treats away, but was instead absolutely caninophobic. Plenty of people are afraid or very afraid of dogs. At least in Belgium, a dog is considered a weapon for insurance and legal purposes. If he had, in fact, said "ma'am, I feel I credibly threatened by your dog being off the leash and if he comes one step closer I'm going to shoot him" - would he have been in his right?
Click to expand...
Legally? He'd have been in the right, assuming all his permits and such were correct. Dogs don't have a lot of rights, they are considered property of the owner and basically the only legal rights that animals have are that they must be well cared for and treated humanely, but a dog's life isn't equal to a human's in the eyes of the law and people have the right to kill dogs in self-defense. If you run over a dog with your car, you might face civil litigation but that would be it. If you are being menaced by a dog (and he would have been, dogs weren't supposed to be in the part of the park he was) by it's owner, you have a self defense claim you can make at least.

Unless they are police/military dogs anyway. Then it's sometimes a second degree felony with decades of jail time. I know some states consider shooting a police dog to be the equivalent to shooting a police officer, with all the penalties that would occur.

Regardless, I'm fairly certain the cops would have shot him the second they got on scene anyway.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
AshburnerX said:
... do we even know her political leanings? I mean, entitled white people came from both ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
Well, I mean, we don't know for sure, but if I had to put money on the political affiliation of the entitled white woman calling the cops on a black man because she clearly knew it'd be the scariest thing she could do to him, I'd put it on her being to the R end of the spectrum.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Well, I mean, we don't know for sure, but if I had to put money on the political affiliation of the entitled white woman calling the cops on a black man because she clearly knew it'd be the scariest thing she could do to him, I'd put it on her being to the R end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I could also see some rich Manhattan Democrat/Martha's Vineyard Democrat doing it too. You know, the kind of folks who are totally onboard with civil rights... right until they are actually confronted by the people they claim to support and go nuts when their asses aren't being kissed. The Joe Biden Democrats, if you will.

Like I said, this could have gone ether way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top