White dude get's pummelled for using the n-word

Post Reply New Topic

The attack is legally unprovoked, regardless of what the man said.

This is happened in America, where people have free speech.

He didn't face any consequences from the state, he got decked by the man he insulted. When you go insulting people in public one has to accept the fact that it will eventually result in getting hit, even if it's not right that someone will hit you.

Just because you (claim to) lack emotional responses doesn't mean that the average person does. Please don't test this experiment, I don't want you to get punched and I seem to have a better understanding of how average people respond to having racial slurs directed towards them.

Also, the title is inaccurate and misleading. He didn't get punched for using the word, he got punched for insulting someone with it.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 21 Jun 2020, 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

The jury decided his actions were legal.

It wouldn't be the first time an American jury acquitted a racist murderer.

Police are trying to find the kids, and investigate the incident.

The investigation may result in charges.

It might and if it does I'll be sure to donate to their defence fund because I'm pro punching people who go around insulting people with that word.

Twelve random people who couldn't even figure out how to avoid jury duty said so, so it MUST be true. Well shucks, that sounds as iron-clad as it gets.

Cos no jury has ever been wrong before. "The law said so" is one of the weakest defenses there is. Much like here, society is willing to believe that any violent action taken *against* a black person must be justified or forgiven, however violent or deadly that action is, while any violent action taken *by* a black person can't possibly be justified, however mild or restrained the action was.

"Don't act violent or someone might shoot you" is a perfect example of this - it's a standard that mostly PoC and minorities are held to, while certain other ethnicities are apparently given an infinite amount of doubt's benefit. It's why black people get shot because someone *thought* they *might* have a gun, but two white guys walk directly into a police station dressed in combat gear and covered in loaded guns and assault rifles, and they just get yelled at to put the guns down, the cops never even draw their guns. Double standards. If a white guy punches another white guy, people finger waggle, but otherwise move along. "Boys will be boys" or something. But if a black guy punches another black guy, oh, that's cos everyone knows black people are just violent. Black-on-black violence stats are an old fav for counter-arguing systemic racism. If a white guy punches a black guy, people assume it must be in defense. If a black guy punches a white guy, people assume it must be assault. Thankfully, not everyone believes these things - but they are generally considered to be socially acceptable reactions to those situations. Much like here, how even though "we don't know either way", it's more acceptable to believe that the black guy is simply a violent thug than to believe that the white guy could have actually said something racist and stupid, and got taught a lesson. Blowing it out of proportion and calling it a "beating", and making a big song and dance about how "deadly" it could have been - when it was in no way a beating, or anywhere near deadly - is just another way that the bias swings one way instead of the other, even when supposedly being "objective".

Mm-hmm. The police are required to follow up, even if they don't actually do anything further about it. Just like police are required to respond to calls, even if they turn out to be nothing, or a complete waste of time. And they may not result in charges. They may drop the whole thing. Even if they decide to move forward, they're gonna waste a ton of taxpayer money, over a minor altercation, black dude may spend a few days in jail and then be on his merry way, and white dude will know better than to say dumb sh!t.

That's because Eminem isn't one

If convicted, the kid may be facing a permanent criminal mark on his police record for all future employers to see.

That likely never goes away and is publicly available.

Possibly, resulting in being prohibited from police/legal/military employment.

Possibly, being prohibited by employers who check police/court records of job applicants.

Possibly, resulting in a lifetime prohibition in acquiring a concealed gun permit. As this action brings into question whether this kid has the mental capacity to handle a concealed weapon and Michigan law has a lifetime ban for a felony, and a time-based ban for certain misdemeanors.

Freedom of speech means the government can't take action against you for saying things. Even then, there are exceptions. Probably more exceptions than you think. Freedom of speech is NOT a shield for using dehumanizing language without consequence. It sickens me when people use "freedom of speech" as a carte blanche to spew ideas that are reprehensible or questionable without facing the consequences. It's the same sort of vague false equivalency as when people act like "I hate broccoli" and "I hate black people" are both "just opinions", and should be treated equally.

People love to cite laws and documents, but those same people don't seem to understand how those laws and documents actually work.

Yes, this is america, a nation built upon racism and xenophobia, all the way back to it's founding and origins and earlier, where bias is so deeply ingrained, that the oppressing side somehow believes that the last 50 years or so of slow unwilling progress that has only been begrudgingly given because it was demanded, with riots and protest, much like right now, somehow offsets and undoes the previous 250 years of setup and establishment that already went into creating and perfecting the system that inherently favors certain groups over others, derived from a centuries-old european system who's entire basis is exploiting the masses for the benefit of the elite, through violently enforcing the idea of "ownership".

Actual "justice" in america is biased, broken, monetized, and unequally applied. Sometimes social justice is necessary, when legal justice fails to uphold it's job. This is where someone usually implies that since I support ANY social justice, I must therefore support ALL social justice, and point to an extreme theoretical example to tie me to as part of this supposition in order to make me look bad. Some people have already used variations of this tactic.

So it sounds like you're guessing. Possibly this possibly that. Possibly, you don't actually know what you're talking about. First of all, IF he even gets charged, it would be a misdemeanor. Those go away, and they generally don't disqualify you from military or police duty. Most jobs only ask about felony convictions, not misdemeanors. Worrying about whether he's ever going to be able to get that high paying job, or a license to carry a gun is so out of touch with the situation, I'm not even sure how to address it. You're already treating him like a thug and a criminal, but then you say he should be better behaved cos it might hurt his career chances or ability to get a concealed carry permit. In racist america, permit or no, black guy with a gun is more likely to get shot just cos black guy with a gun, without even having to do anything wrong.

So now that we've made it to "imaginary exaggerated baloney consequences" on the list of random fluff used as excuses to blow this out of proportion and "objectively" declare ultimate guilt on the one party, what not-racist-but-actually-kinda-racist-in-a-socially-acceptable-way double-standard is going to get brought up next?

"Assault" in Michigan can be a felony.

The kid "sucker punched" the man (from behind), that could be viewed an assault to cause great bodily harm, which is a felony.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/r ... sault-laws

The police have the kid on video tape assaulting a man.

The police have said the attack is legally unprovoked.

The police are actively looking to find the kid.

The next step is arrest, possibly jail time, possible restitution for medical expenses.

.

Last edited by sly279 on 21 Jun 2020, 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

99% sure if any of the people in this thread had this happen to them they’d be calling the cops and pressing charges. hypocrisy at its best. No one likes to be assaulted but some like to see others assaulted.

For practical purposes, if even an arrest is found in a background check, the applicant, at least, has some explaining to do.

A non-sealed conviction for disorderly conduct (not a felony, not even a misdemeanor in New York State) can be de facto disqualifying.

Much repeat crime is economic in nature because people with criminal records (misdemeanors included) have a very hard time finding employment.

Assault with anything other than a part of a person’s body is usually a felony.