WestCanMan

Again, wtf do you even mean by that? He's saying that people should break the law? Do you have an example? You know that's a daily occurrence from the Dems, right? They're constantly inciting riots, or telling their supporters to harass political opponents, etc. There are no retribution cases, dingbat. Trump was repeatedly charged by Dem AGs for BS offences, and his investigation into Carroll is "an investigation of a known crime". She lied during her deposition. And then she admitted to it because she's braindead. I'm not following your Bolton story. What's that even about?

You can't even read a comic book. You probably had to use a spellchecker to get "US" right. And wtf did you mean by "advocations" of Trump? Do you even know what advocate means? What is Trump "advocating" for? Last i heard, he was the president, so he was "doing" things, not just advocating.

Trump in 2026 isn't solely responsible for 50 years of decaying infrastructure, so grow up @BeaverFever, you fking child. Just start a legit topic like a grown up for once you worthless tw4t Leftists are all about war on the energy sector.... "Let's stop making gas and coal and then spend millions on foreign aid BS and Somali scammers". Just imagine if the money wasted on scammers and foreign aid was spent on infrastructure... And the US was producing more energy at a lower cost.... But leftists are livid about the money saved by putting an end to scams in Minnesota and LA. And they are even mader about the money saved by DOGE. Should America have powerlines, or give money to Djibouti for transgender surgeries? How would you prioritize those items?

Urban dictionary doesn't describe "watermelon felon" as a racial insult, so it wasn't. When a person acts out of their character to impress others and appear bad ass or have bad ass like qualities, Hence the meaning of the fruit a watermelon referring to guys who act as if they are the hulk, a one man army, or unstoppable. A watermelon being green on the outside (a foolish rookie, in-experienced,fake,attention seeking) and but not hardened or tough and soft&pink inside..like a vagina. If you think of Karmelo's reason for the stabbing the same way I do, then the term fits perfectly. It sounds like Karmelo was just trying to be a badass, and he stabbed the guy for disobeying him, not because he was scared. "He put his hands on me." It's pretty racist to say that "by using the term watermelon, it was clearly referring to black people, because no one else eats watermelon", right? "LET'S CALL EVERYONE RACIST!!!! LET'S USE THIS TRAGEDY TO SPREAD HATRED AND DIVISION!!!!" - CNN and the Dems.

No. If you say "I was protecting myself" that still just sounds like you're trying to speak in legal terms, and it sounds like an unemotional event, which doesn't require a self-defence stabbing. . If you actually killed someone in self-defence you'd be talking about how certain you were of death, and talking about all the crazy things that the deceased was saying and doing. Imagine a person completely freaked out, saying they thought that they were going to be murdered, describing the irrational and scary things that a madman was saying and doing... That sounds exactly like a legitimate instance of self-defence. Even: "The guy was trying to kill me. He went totally crazy and threw his popcorn in my face as hard as he could, and i don't even know why. Then he was just screaming and making threats. I couldn't see very well because I have butter and salt in my eyes, then he put his hand on my throat, and I thought for sure I was gonna die" sounds like a self-defence claim. Now try to imagine the most completely freaked out person saying: "I warned him, and then he put his hands on me. Was it self-defence?" How can someone say those words and make it sound like they were afraid for their life? I don't think Meryl Streep could do it. To me, it honestly sounds like he killed the guy for disobedience. I'm not even 1% convinced that it was self-defence. Do you know what the ratio of shoves to murders is, even in Texas? Think of how many shoves there are in a school year, vs how many murders at every school... C'mon, this isn't even a real discussion. Just remember that in reality, it's not about "What do I say to get out of going to prison?" It's about people only using lethal force when they think it's necessary. No one thinks Karmelo was actually protecting his life. No one thinks that he felt like he was defending his life. I truly don't. Do you honestly think he was? By his own words and story, it doesn't sound like he felt like death was imminent By the testimony of all the witnesses present, his stabbing of the victim was a completely wild and unreasonable escalation Imagine a world where everybody who shoves someone gets killed. They'd realistically need a mass grave at every high school.

Morals and legal outcomes are often wildly different. You're right, and I did say "it takes a lot of contradictory evidence to say that it was not "self-defence". 23-yr-old Mike Tyson couldn't say "I feared for my life" about a 79-yr-old man in a movie theatre who threw popcorn in his face. Could Karmelo have said it? With so many witnesses going against him? Maybe not. But if he had Johnny Cochrane type money, probably. I'd say that if he hadn't asked the cop "Was it self defence", and he got a good lawyer who could get the case on TV, and then drag the case along for a few months, while Anthony cried, and the lawyer talked about racism, slavery, and Jim Crowe laws ad nauseam... Forming an angry mob...

OK, that was funny for a left4rd jab. I'll grant you that one. Up until yesterday people were calling it a 5" knife. Then a 5" multi-tool knife. Now I think the consensus is that it's a 3.5" knife. 1) 'Tis not so deep as a well, nor wide as a church door, but 'twill suffice. 2) No, it looks like it a knife that was designed for people who need to say "it's a multi-tool, so I'm allowed to carry it here" on occasion. No, but it was egregious behaviour to stay after he was asked to leave. Wrong. One person from that whole team knew him. FYI it's possible to invite someone to a party and then find out that ten people there hate them. People had every right to ask him to leave, the majority of people were very clear that they wanted him out. And at the end of the day, none of that matters. Witnesses agreed that no one was violent towards him, and he was provoking people: He wasn't sitting there afraid of people, but then swearing at them all, and challenging them. OMG, listen to yourself now. Stabber: "I don't like the way they asked me to leave. I'm gonna stay here and stab someone." Judge: "SYG defence denied. Next." Can you imagine if your flimsy excuse for murdering people became the standard? And the answer is no, and was for every single moment of that encounter. Immediately after the incident with 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, Anthony told officers, "I was protecting myself" and "He put his hands on me. I told him not to" He's not describing "fear" of Metcalfe or the team in general. That's defiance and hubris. He only ever showed real fear of "the consequences of his actions". Even if he was unreasonably afraid, that's a legal defence that has been used successfully before. A woman in Minnesota called police, and when she went to the back alley in her housecoat, a cop shot her. He had no chance of getting off based on "reasonable fear", she just surprised him and he killed her. Anthony never killed Metcalfe because he was afraid. Not once did he say that he felt actual fear: not to the students in the tent, not to the police, and not in court. See his quotes above. That's all worthless speculation. Wrong. I'll explain at the end. It was a 79-yr-old man and a 43-yr-old man. If a 43-yr-old Mike Tyson wanted to make a 79-yr-old man think that he was gonna kill him, could he do it? I would say that the answer is 100% yes. And I think that there are tens of thousands of people that scary, although few are as capable. Even a crazy psychopath like little Charles Manson could do scare a person enough to think that he was gonna kill him. And if the theatre guy said "I thought for sure he was gonna kill me", then it was self-defence. I think that pro concealed-carry conservatives in Canada are probably akin to "healthy 8th month abortionists" in the US. They're there, but not in number. When put to the test, I think it's maybe 3%. In Canada I don't think many are in favour of concealed carry. We're not a handgun country. Here's my take on it. Karmelo's comments all sound like: "I warned him, then he put his hands on me". He never describes actual fear for his life, or a serious threat to his life or health. If a person kills someone and then asks a cop: "Was it self-defence?" I would posit that the answer is always "no". Because the person who did the killing is the only person who ever truly knows, right? And if they knew that they were afraid for their life, then their statement is more like: "I thought for sure they were gonna kill me", or "I had no choice." At which point it takes a lot of contradictory evidence to say that it was not "self-defence". "Officer, was it self-defence?" "No" If Karmelo talked to a lawyer before he talked to the police, his lawyer would have said "Your answer is always: 'I was afraid for my life', and then a jury will have no choice but to acquit them.

I knew it was the butt, I just didn't wanna say it. Where did you come up with that little misplaced nugget of stupidty?

Resilience 😂 We are losing, resiliently 😉

I can't believe you still come here. You truly have no sense of shame. FYI no one was as divisive as Obama was. No other president ever watched homes and business get destroyed, watched police officers get ambushed and murdered, watched special needs people get tortured, watched civilians getting harassed and beaten, and just kept on lying to incite more and more violence. Can you find me a video of Obama saying: "M Brown wasn't actually a gentle giant, he was a violent criminal in the moments before he was shot. We should not be destroying our country for a person who was almost certainly shot for attacking a police officer." In Sept 2014, months after we already knew for a fact that M Brown was absolutely not an innocent target of an unnecessary police investigation, Obama was still talking about it like it was. His address to his fellow racists in the congressional black caucus on Sept 27 President Obama stated that the death of Michael Brown and the resulting unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, exposed deep racial disparities within the American criminal justice system. He noted: [1, 2, 3, 4] He also noted that the situation "scars the hearts of white children who grow unnecessarily fearful of somebody who doesn’t look like them." [1] Key Themes of the Address Systemic Bias: Obama affirmed that communities of color face measurable, statistical disparities in the justice system. Again: months after we already knew for a fact that M Brown was absolutely not an innocent target of an unnecessary police investigation, Obama was still talking about it like it was All of his speech about Brown was a mix of revisionist history lies, fear mongering, hate mongering, and racial division based on HIS false narrative that was still causing rampant discussion in America at the time he said that. Barack Obama is a divisive, hateful racist POS who lied to Americans in order to incite violent, destructive riots and murders, and please quote me on that as often as you'd like.

Trump has no choice but to stay in his lane and work for Americans, and the Dems's media hatemongers attack him for it. You've seen him hold press conferences with snotty, relentless losers from CNN, etc. He's busy working for America while CNN works for the Dems. FYI that's not him being politically divisive, that's him doing his job. Obama was racially divisive. B Hussy and Michelle still are racially divisive.

And you don't think the shoe fits? Your lack of self-awareness is only surpassed by your confirmation bias and stupidity. Trudeau: "Canada is the first postnational state." Linkie, Libtards, CBC: "🥰 We are a postnational state 🥰" Poilievre: "The LPoC policies are hurting working-class Canadians. We are in a recession." Linkie, Libtards, CBC: "Poilievre is fixating on the truth again. He's so unpatriotic 🥲 "

Show me on the dolly where the bad man's words hurt you....

FIFY. Now you can take it to schools and sporting events. 😂

This is one of the 5 "tools" on Karmelo's "6-in-one multi-tool": Can you imagine being stranded in the middle of nowhere without one of those? Hapless Man: "I dropped my keys somewhere in that forest!" 'Melo-Man: "Don't worry! I have a flashlight on my multi-tool!" Hapless Man: "Melo-Man, can you cut this piece of rope with your 5" knife?" 'Melo-Man: "It's not a knife, it's a multi-tool, and the answer is no. But lucky for you it has this cord-cutter tool on it, for when you need to cut a piece of rope thin cord but you only have a stabbing weapon." "I can cut ropes up to 3/8" thick with this. I dunno how we're gonna cut that 1/2" polypropylene rope though. I don't have a tool for that." Hapless Man: "All I have are these lighters and matches, and this tiger torch, but I can't seem to light this log on fire. Please tell me that there's something on your multi-tool, Melo-Man..." 'Melo-Man: "I once used this to weld two train cars together. it should do the trick!" Hapless Man: "I bet that you can survive an apocalypse or build a house with that thing, Melo-Man. Have a nice day." *STAB STAB* Hapless Man: *coughs up blood* "Why, Melo-Man?" Melo-Man: "Where I come from, we say "Have a GREAT day"... Saying "Have a nice day" is not considered "nice", so I had to stand my ground. Hapless Man: "👻"

"Multi-tool" is the new "gentle giant", "mostly peaceful protest", "religion of peace"....

It's not really a "multi-tool" per se. When most people think of a multi-tool it's usually more tool based than knife based, like a leatherman. That's a "multi-tool". Even a Swiss Army knife isn't really called a multi-tool, it's a knife with a bunch of other stuff attached. Karmelo's "multi-tool" was a big-ass knife with some really minor "tools" attached: That's the "Ozark Trail 6-in-1 Multi-Tool Knife with Light (Model 5335) from Walmart", which Karmelo used to kill someone. No one would look at that and say "It's a multi-tool". It has a tiny light, a tiny rope-cutter, a flint, and the smallest bottle-opener anywhere. If I attach a flashlight and a screwdriver to my shotgun can I call it a multi-tool? "Sorry, no guns allowed here, sir." "Oh, it's not a gun, it's a multi-tool." No I'm not. Not in the city. I have a restricted firearms license, I'm allowed to own handguns, but I don't wanna carry my handgun around here. Out hiking, maybe, but that's illegal unless you're a surveyor. I don't mind that some police officers are allowed (narc squad police are allowed to carry while off-duty here) to carry, but I don't want that responsibility. I don't even think they're all that useful TBH. I can hit things at 200 yards with a rifle that I can't hit at 30' with a handgun. I'm not doing "it". "It's" not pervasive. The kid was carrying A. BIG. LETHAL. WEAPON. Not a "multi-tool". Not a multi-tool at all. I played softball up until last year. 57. From time to time teams bring those kinds of tents to tournaments to block the sun usually, but also the rain. I have "mingled" in other teams' tents before, but if they asked me to leave I'd never say "no". That's just plain fkn ignorant. But if you're not a friend, or you're unwanted, fkn leave. You could even say "He shouldn't have shoved that guy, he should get suspended for 2 days." But could you ever say "Someone shoved him so he stabbed the guy to death"? Does that make fkn sense? Zimmerman was jumped and was beating seriously beaten. That's nothing like this story. I will see what kids testified to in court before I start weighing in on that aspect of it. Oh, I dunno. Maybe because he killed someone? Do you think Kevin Hart sits around laughing and joking and then just stabs people? Only Will Smith goes from "laughing at a joke" one second, and then slapping someone the next, and even black people can't believe he went and did that. And that was just a slap, not a stab. Regardless of what I think of Will Smith now, I don't think there's a chance in hell that he woulda stabbed anyone that night. And stop acting like conservatives are being weird about race. It's conservatives that say "Baldwin killed that woman", and he's no blacker than I am.

OMG, that's an all-time Babylon Bee great.

I watched CNN for 90 minutes, they didn't show it all in that time, they just said that other channels showed it and they didn't. They must have briefly showed it at 11:30 pm and then just went back to regularly scheduled inciting, because all they did for years was incite, incite, incite. That's called "the opposite of reporting", it's called bias, framing, and most importantly: creating a false narrative. Is there a differing amount of weight that's carried by different types of evidence and different types of witnesses? Is video evidence better than/equal to/worse than eyewitness testimony? Is a professional, independent witness better than a friend of the accused or accuser, etc? Buddy, "friends of the victim" testimony is literally at the bottom of the totem pole, and at the bottom of the "friends of the victim" category is "cute details about their backstory". During the M Brown saga CNN talked about: BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 so many white cops are racists! BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 arrest rates of blacks vs whites BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 how angry people were BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 so many white cops are racists! Obama is sad agin slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves the ratio of black/white cops in Ferguson black congressmen are angry arrest rates of blacks vs whites so many white cops are racists! racial profiling how angry people were arrest rates of blacks vs whites so many white cops are racists! slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves arrest rates of blacks vs whites black congressmen are angry slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves how angry people were racial profiling BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 Jim Crowe laws slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves arrest rates of blacks vs whites so many white cops are racists! BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 video footage of M Brown's robbery BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 arrest rates of blacks vs whites BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 how angry people were so many white cops are racists! BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves the ratio of black/white cops in Ferguson black congressmen are angry arrest rates of blacks vs whites racial profiling how angry people were so many white cops are racists! arrest rates of blacks vs whites slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves arrest rates of blacks vs whites slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves how angry people were racial profiling so many white cops are racists! BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 Jim Crowe laws slavery: only whites ever owned slaves, blacks were the only slaves arrest rates of blacks vs whites so many white cops are racists! BS "backstory details from friends and family" 24/7 ^^That's CNN's coverage of M Brown, and you're saying: "LOOK AT #31!!! IT'S RIGHT THERE!!!" It should have been: Video evidence of Brown's robbery moments before the incident the cop's story the eyewitness accounts Video evidence of Brown's robbery moments before the incident Video evidence of Brown's robbery moments before the incident none of that other BS. The fact that M Brown was a caught on video being a violent criminal just a couple minutes before he was shot was THE MAIN PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THAT CASE. Even the forensic evidence that showed that his hands weren't up comes in second, because that could honestly be BS, or it could look like hand was down because his arm was finishing a downward strike, or it could look like hand was up because his arm was starting a downward strike. The forensic evidence was basically shit imo. What's important is that we KNEW that Brown was a violent criminal, in that moment. Maybe he was having the worst day ever and that store owner really did tick him off. Fact remains, he was in the midst of a violent episode when he was arrested. So "the number of apples he put on his teacher;s desk in grade 2 was irrelevant", but it was the main thrust of CNN's programming. That and "WHITE RACIST COPS!!!!! 😱😱😱" Take this with you Hodad: when a news org wants you to feel a certain way about a crime, they give a face and backstory to a victim of that crime. On Fox it's Laken Riley types. On CNN it's violent black criminals who get shot after fighting with the police. CNN also gets a lot of traction from things like a cocaine turtle, or a kid washed up on a beach. And the most important thing is to strike while the iron is hot: get the backstory and face pic out there right away while emotion is high, to generate a solid imprint on the viewers. Adding faces 1 month later, when the crime is stale, is like adding jam to moldy bread: it's worthless.

Karmelo's response was neither proportional nor reasonable. Not from "the way it sounds to us", and not from "the way it appeared to all of the witnesses at the scene." You're talking about sports, and tradition, in the USA. Talk to the other team's bench and see what happens. Celebrate too much after scoring and see what happens. Throw a couple pitches too close to opposing players' heads and see what happens. Skate across the center line during the pre-game and see what happens. Throw a jersey for your own team on the floor and see what happens. If you just get a push, consider yourself lucky. Athletes are territorial, and pushing is accepted. Even in soccer, the biggest b1otch sport of all, people can push. But you can't stab in soccer. Not even in lacrosse, and that sport is crazier than hockey. I ask you: could a Yale rower just walk in and hang out in a Harvard tent? Guys from those schools are theoretically America's foremost gentleman in that age group, but there will absolutely be a push. 100%. That being said, the chance that there won't be a stabbing is also 100%. And if by some miracle there was, even the whitest stabber killing the blackest victim would be found guilty of murder. You just can't murder people for a push. Even in Texas. And honestly... who brings a fkn crocodile Dundee knife to a rowing event, or a track meet? It seems a bit pre-meditated, even if that's notwithstanding the fact that it's just "100% legal".

Hodad: you're being a bit of an acceptance filter for everything from the Martin/Karmelo POV and a total rejection filter from the Zimmerman/Metcalfe POV. The stories weren't the same at all, yet you're trying to draw a 100% parallel. 1) Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon because of a light shove, he was (allegedly) surprise-attacked while he was walking back to his car. That's the only version of the story in existence, so a jury had no choice but to rule based on that (aka - the only) version of the story. 2) Karmelo had every opportunity in the world to choose a less murdery path, and his response to a shove was the exact opposite of proportional, or reasonable. If his standard became the rule, then people with concealed knives and guns could run rampant on society. Any kid that had two friends with him could say "Hodad shoved me", and if his witnesses agreed, they could get away with killing you. Your standard is just ridiculous. Obama's quote: "When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." That's his quote. Verbatim. And it's what's known as a snuck premise. Only in this instance, it's more like a "diabolically divisive snuck premise that laid the groundwork for racial violence that was justified in advance by the president." Think about it: if Obama's version of the story was correct (which 99% of demonrats would assume) that means that if a younger version of himself was really just out buying Skittles, and then ran into Zimmerman while he was just humming politely to himself of the way home, he couldn't possibly have survived because he was black, and Zimmerman was out looking for a black to shoot. I don't buy it. I think that if a young Barack Obama was walking through that neighbourhood, minding his own business, he would have been fine. His risk of ending up being shot would have been zero. Was it safe for white people to walk around in the US after Obama's racially divided presidency? Four individuals were convicted and sentenced in 2017 and 2018 for the racially charged kidnapping and torture of an 18-year-old white man with special needs in Chicago. The January 2017 incident drew nationwide outrage after a 28-minute video of the abuse was broadcast on Facebook Live. A 28-minute torture video. Think about that. Where did the justification [in their minds] come from? Do you think it had nothing to do with the BS M Brown narrative? Or Obama's assertion that Trayvon was just killed by a racist and white folk didn't care? I think that's impossible, because "the BS M Brown narrative and Obama's assertion that Trayvon was just killed by a racist and white folk didn't care" caused years of violent racial riots, which were still going strong in the month that attack happened. And that's not a snuck premise, it's an undeniable fact.

He was just changing the topic, tbh. The main point in my post was that leftists were destroying cities with racial riots on a MASSIVE scale long before Trump was even a blip on their radar, contrary to Linksoul's assertion that they were new under Trump. Racial riots were new under Obama, but to be more precise: massive, destructive, artificially ginned-up racial riots became a a thing under Obama, and he was the main instigator of all that. Linkie has run away. This thread didn't go well for him.

That's possible, I guess. I don't know if I found out about it on the exact day it happened. It's possible that news of that incident never made its way to BC for 6 days. However; on the day that I found out about that shooting, Fox was showing the video, and CNN was saying that they weren't showing the video "out of respect for the deceased and his family." More importantly, CNN ignored Brown's crime, kept the video from the public, and carried on with the BS gentle giant narrative for MONTHS while the country was being destroyed. They were constantly talking about "racist cops, the number of white/black cops in various areas, arrest rates for blacks (it was supposed to be important because allegedly whites don't get arrested when they commit crimes lol), slavery, Jim Crowe laws, oppression, poverty, etc" as if those things were all more important than the fact that the Gentle Giant narrative was total bullshit. CNN acted like the protests were for a legitimate cause and the cop was most likely just another racist pig out shootin' kind, innocent black folks. That was the only impression they gave. "It's pretty much carved in stone that this is the way it happened." That's why the whole CNNiverse was astounded when the verdict didn't back all of CNN's "facts". Honest to God, I considered CNN a news source until I saw their coverage of the M Brown story, and by the second day I was fully aware that they were absolutely not a "news" channel. I'll ask you now... At the conclusion of that story, with all you know, and all that CNN should have made apparent early on, do you think that CNN handled that story like a legitimate news organization? Do you think that they handled that story in a way that fuelled racial division and hatred?

No, you're wrong about that. Metcalfe's response to Karmelo was fair and reasonable. You're correct to say that he didn't own that tent, but he had a reasonable claim to ask Anthony to leave, and he didn't behave in a manner that was out of order for that situation by shoving him. Anthony's response to the shove was not reasonable, necessary, justifiable, or especially proportional, and therein lies the rub: SYG laws don't give you the right to kill someone for a shove. You seem to think that SYG means that you can stand wherever you want and if anyone touches you or speaks to you with a scary tone, you can murder them, and it doesn't mean that at all. What's alarming is that you seem to be trying really hard to understand these laws, and yet you have it all backwards. Think of it as "SYG from a serious threat, or unprovoked attack", not "act like an alligator at the edge of a pond." In Texas, you don't have to run: when you're behaving reasonably and someone comes and flexes on you, intimidates you, and then makes a serious threat or attacks you with actual violence. At the point where a person feels like they're in real danger for their life, they can use lethal force. They can't "start shooting during a shoving match."

I wish I could say that: "what we are exposed to on this site is just bottom-of-the-barrel leftists, most of them aren't like this", but the sad fact is that, even the cute little pearl-clutching grannies who still think that CBC "News" is legitimate, believe all the BS narratives about M Brown, Obama, Biden, Trump, collusion, the jabs, Iran, Palestinian 'victims', etc. I don't think that a granny who's inculcating her grandchildren with ret4rded leftist drivel is any better than younger people who attend pro-genocide rallies with keffiyehs on.