Mcdonalds Incident.... Self defense???
- Thread starter tapdatass
- Start date
This isn't about being tough bruh. So let's say you retreat and don't pick up anything. You give them a fair one. But they don't want a fair one. They pick up something and bash your fucking skull in. Maybe you get a finger in a eye and lose your sight. For what? You already retreated. What if one of the nasty bitches bites you and gives you Hepatitis? You don't owe any attackers -- man, woman or beast -- a damn thing.
Especially some loud mouth ghetto dykes? They good for having box cutters, you won't even feel yourself leaking trying to be a "good guy" in the situation.
When did I attack you for being a single mother? Not once, so spare me with that.
What I said was you need to pay more attention to him (your son) than what you're doing here online arguing with what you call strangers?
You're the one doing all the name calling and making death threats, but asking others to respect you, you can't have it both ways. You want me to side with you because someone is talking about black women, single mothers, etc, but that's not my fight to be discussed. Those are issues that you want to argue about, so you do.
As far as everyone saying we're bringing her child up and we're this and that...ok, but if you allow someone to make you spaz out online like she is, then what is he seeing, but y'all are the ones that say black women ruin boys by shit that we do when they're young. So this is healthy for him??? But you're right her child is not my concern, by any means.
I'll be a bitch, sucker, old hoe, cunt or whatever, but this is not something I'm losing sleep over, or staying up all night waiting to see who's going to say something about me next.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm genuinely shocked. Fuck this thread.
Ol round-and-round-we-go ass niggas
Call da ambalamps!!!
OMGAWD 20+ PAGES!!!!
you didn't. why are you wasting keystrokes?
Thank you CT
This mutha fucka will be 50 pages by the end of the weekend...Watch...
Gene you know i don't really feel threatened. But it is the same thing. You're making excuses for rebar guy, saying he felt he was in danger which is why he continued to beat those women even though they were down. Because he thought they were armed and dangerous even though they didn't show anything. You're saying he was in fear for his life.
How are you going to guage what is fear for your life? And what's the point where you can feel this fear?
If i'm afraid, i'm afraid. Why does it have to be physical for me to feel that fear? It's been said that when you feel fear for your life then you are prompted to defend yourself, by any means. Which is what rebar guy did(according to many in this post). If you threaten me even here. How am i to know you can't come and do me harm? You might. You don't know right? It's real in the field. So then shouldn't i get you before you get me?
Bad comparison, just bad. He was being confronted right there, and then. Not from across the country, or from across town on the phone. If you are being threaten online. You have the option of contacting the police, getting out of the house, arming yourself etc... and you are not in any immediate danger. He was in immediate danger at his work place in person.
Yeah i'm not as good at the "make up things to try to back up our point logic" that alot of guys are. A failing of mine i know. I'd rather go by and analyze what i see and understand human behavior instead of trying to put myself into the mind and situation of that instance.
Think what he's thinking and feel what he's feeling doesn't work. And is foolish to do. Which is why before i said there's a proponent of guys who say he was in fear for his life, because they're making up what they'd want to believe. Whereas by looking at his body language i see an enraged person who got carried away. But we'll see how the judge sees it soon enough.
What does all that side shit matter. Your logic pertains to having self control. In other words, if you stick to how you are defending her, or speaking for her. Then you would be on the other side of your argument here, about this man, and his "lack of self control". You want to be on two sides of the issue because one involves a man "losing self control", and on the others side,a woman "losing self control". You are being shown your bias, and you don't like it one bit. That's why you lost self control responding to me.
What does all that side shit matter. Your logic pertains to having self control. In other words, if you stick to how you are defending her, or speaking for her. Then you would be on the other side of your argument here, about this man, and his "lack of self control". You want to be on two sides of the issue because one involves a man "losing self control", and on the others side,a woman "losing self control". You are being shown your bias, and you don't like it one bit. That's why you lost self control responding to me.
The force is strong in this one.
What does all that side shit matter. Your logic pertains to having self control. In other words, if you stick to how you are defending her, or speaking for her. Then you would be on the other side of your argument here, about this man, and his "lack of self control". You want to be on two sides of the issue because one involves a man "losing self control", and on the others side,a woman "losing self control". You are being shown your bias, and you don't like it one bit. That's why you lost self control responding to me.
What does all that side shit matter. Your logic pertains to having self control. In other words, if you stick to how you are defending her, or speaking for her. Then you would be on the other side of your argument here, about this man, and his "lack of self control". You want to be on two sides of the issue because one involves a man "losing self control", and on the others side,a woman "losing self control". You are being shown your bias, and you don't like it one bit. That's why you lost self control responding to me.
I must concur with the logic and PRINCIPLE of your self-control concept, it can't be both ways due to gender.
Lonestar is human enough to admit she got beside herself..kudos for that. LI you can't have it both ways so which way is it, Human-My bad or Ego- some more dosey doe disagreeing?
They weren't "down", they were trying to get back up. Why were they trying to get back up? Given their immediate past actions, probably to continue an attack. Fuck them. Once they laid their asses down, he stopped. Threat neutralized. Let them hoes up after a few whacks and they only pissed and probably still on some warpath shit.
The only reason you are at this guy is because two women were involved. Had this been two male thugs instead of two female thugs, neither you or that white lady in the video would be saying anything.
I have no bias at all. Man, woman or beast, whatever jumped over that counter to attack should have been dealt with. I don't give a fuck is a seeing eye dog jumped that counter.
What does all that side shit matter. Your logic pertains to having self control. In other words, if you stick to how you are defending her, or speaking for her. Then you would be on the other side of your argument here, about this man, and his "lack of self control". You want to be on two sides of the issue because one involves a man "losing self control", and on the others side,a woman "losing self control". You are being shown your bias, and you don't like it one bit. That's why you lost self control responding to me.
It matters plenty. When he addresses it. I'll comment accordingly to him. He did something, and spoke to her in a way that i disagreed with. And i'm asking him about it.
I disagree. I think you're biased. And the way you respond to this thread, and certain words you use? Shows your bias. You keep using words and phrases that prove you're projecting yourself onto this situation. You just will not look at the facts presented will you? Your bias is clouding your vision of that video.
I don't care that they were women. I would've said the same exact thing if those were men. I would look at the tape. And see what happened and my response would be the same. "he's going to jail. Because he was excessive." Based on experience. And what i see on the tape.
Fam, a lot of the times I hear you speaking on lifting weights. I assume your a big enough in size to protect yourself. Me I would not resort to a weapon on two females when I know I have the size and weight advantage. I would watched her jump over that counter stood there when she made a move I would have layed her out right where she stood. No need for a weapon, and how do any of you explain the hit to her back? If you watch the video closely you can see him shake his head with enjoyment as he swung the rod.
Some one is saying that apparently the accomplice,the one who got less in the beating,has a domestic violence case pending on her in brooklyn.
NOT SURE IF ITS TRUE.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/web...cordType=C&recordNum=vX8UCIjKPmjliv1tTSLajw==
this is the link she posted but i cant get it to work.
someone can try to verify.
NOT SURE IF ITS TRUE.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/web...cordType=C&recordNum=vX8UCIjKPmjliv1tTSLajw==
this is the link she posted but i cant get it to work.
someone can try to verify.
I think that math problem thread went on longer. That shit went for 50 pages in a day.
I notice you never respond to ALL that's being said. Just the parts you think you can knock down.
You address Gene's "projecting himself" because he says what he would've done, but step over what he said about the girls trying to get up to continue an attack.
YOU dont know WHAT the girls are doing behind the counter to make this guy hit them after they were down. Neither do I, I wont pretend to. But I wont allow YOU to pretend EITHER by saying his actions were EXCESSIVE.
You dont see any more than we do.
But what we DO see is the girls WHOLE act that got them the beating they got.
Will we speak on THEIR ability to control themselves? or are girls not accountable?
And if we will? WHEN? Page 155??
Did you really just attempt to call someone bias Ms. Defend Your Dyke-Kind at All Costs?
Man that chick is confused.
ive posed most of these question,but she choose to not speak of this issues here pertaining to the situation at hand,instead she choose to speak of self control,and all these other superficial and self righteous nonsense.
This is an assumption you can make...not having been there.
Im from Brooklyn. where these chicks will buck-50 you ass. Cuz your macho ego "thinks" you can handle a couple of chicks smaller than you.
This is an assumption you can make...not having been there.
Im from Brooklyn. where these chicks will buck-50 your ass. Cuz your macho ego "thinks" you can handle a couple of chicks smaller than you.
Mom of burger flipper caught on video beating two McDonald's customers defends son
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...m_backs_son_in_mcds_attack.html#ixzz1bHEYr9ns
The mom of the burger flipper caught on video beating two unruly McDonald's customers insists her ex-con son was just trying to get his life together when things went wrong on the late shift.
Rayon McIntosh appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday to face assault and weapons charges in the Greenwich Village beatdown seen round the Net.
"My son is a loving individual - not a criminal," said the 52-year-old mom, who did not give her name. "He wasn't walking the streets and looking for a fight or trying to rob somebody. He was working."
McIntosh, 31, spent more than a decade behind bars in the 2000 slaying of a classmate.
In the incident last Thursday at the Mickey D's on W. Third St., he apparently snapped when Denise Darbeau and Rachel Edwards, both 24, allegedly lobbed a barrage of insults at him and co-workers.
Michael Joseph, who was also working that night, testified that one of the women yelled at a third employee: "F--k you! I hope you get deported."
When the two women jumped over the counter, he said, McIntosh grabbed a metal rod and started hitting the two. Darbeau suffered a fractured skull.
McIntosh was held in lieu of $40,000 bail and is due in court Dec. 2.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...m_backs_son_in_mcds_attack.html#ixzz1bHEEBAZj
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...m_backs_son_in_mcds_attack.html#ixzz1bHEYr9ns
The mom of the burger flipper caught on video beating two unruly McDonald's customers insists her ex-con son was just trying to get his life together when things went wrong on the late shift.
Rayon McIntosh appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday to face assault and weapons charges in the Greenwich Village beatdown seen round the Net.
"My son is a loving individual - not a criminal," said the 52-year-old mom, who did not give her name. "He wasn't walking the streets and looking for a fight or trying to rob somebody. He was working."
McIntosh, 31, spent more than a decade behind bars in the 2000 slaying of a classmate.
In the incident last Thursday at the Mickey D's on W. Third St., he apparently snapped when Denise Darbeau and Rachel Edwards, both 24, allegedly lobbed a barrage of insults at him and co-workers.
Michael Joseph, who was also working that night, testified that one of the women yelled at a third employee: "F--k you! I hope you get deported."
When the two women jumped over the counter, he said, McIntosh grabbed a metal rod and started hitting the two. Darbeau suffered a fractured skull.
McIntosh was held in lieu of $40,000 bail and is due in court Dec. 2.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...m_backs_son_in_mcds_attack.html#ixzz1bHEEBAZj
The co accomplice has a domestic violence case pending.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/web...rdNum=vX8UCIjKPmjliv1tTSLajw==#DocketSentence
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/web...rdNum=vX8UCIjKPmjliv1tTSLajw==#DocketSentence
LI likes to speak poetic nonsense. Things that aint real but sound good on paper.
Never did she answer what would be her response if this were her because
that's either "projecting" or "no one's gonna believe her".
But you know what? We prolly won't. She knows whatever answer she
DOES come up with will be so ridiculous that it wont wash.
Either way....
She has made it perfectly clear that she thinks women are the weaker sex
by allowing a different set of rules. Men must use control, Women? not so much.
She even accepted LoneStar's murder threats because Dray spoke on her child..
Which if you wanna call both wrong, FINE. But she focused MORE on DRAY's
INSULTS and less on Lone's THREAT'S OF VIOLENCE.
So I dont wanna hear shit about gender equality
from anyone named "Legacy Infinity" or "WhenTheGoinGetsTuff".
The co accomplice has a domestic violence case pending.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/web...rdNum=vX8UCIjKPmjliv1tTSLajw==#DocketSentence
New development!!! She's a CRIMINAL!!!
NOW WHAT SAY YOU?!?!
The co accomplice has a domestic violence case pending.
And it's probably on the chick that she's with, because dykes fight each other more than any other relationship.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
