Arrested after saying verboten word

[tod evans]

From Drudge;

Veteran TV reporter harassed with racial slurs; man arrested

http://www.wyff4.com/news/Veteran-TV-reporter-harassed-with-racial-slurs-man-arrested/42171586

CHARLESTON, S.C. —Racial slurs against a veteran TV news reporter were caught on camera by the reporter’s videographer, and the man who is accused of hurling the insults was arrested.

Longtime reporter and documentarian Steve Crump, 59, of WBTV in Charlotte was in downtown Charleston on Oct. 8 working on Hurricane Matthew coverage. He and his photographer had just finished an interview and were walking to their news van on Broad Street when a man who was sitting on the sidewalk, later identified as Brian Eybers of Virginia, called Crump a racial slur, authorities said.

On video, Crump is recorded walking over to the man and asking if he called him the n-word, to which Eybers responds, “Yes, I believe I did.”

Eybers then said the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and God gave him the right to call Crump slurs, and he said he is “superior” to Crump.

"You really are a (slur),” Eybers says. “You’re ignorant.”

With Eybers recording on his iPad and WBTV photographer Devin Futrelle shooting video, the verbal confrontation continued until Crump got into the news vehicle. Eybers then positioned himself in front of the vehicle so Crump and Futrelle could not leave.

Crump called police and told them he was being harassed and was called the n-word by a guy who wouldn’t get out of the way, and he asked for someone to come and “run him off.”

Police arrived at the scene, and ended up putting Eybers in handcuffs on the front steps of a nearby Catholic church.

According to a police report, Eybers was arrested for disorderly conduct. Officers said they also found a crack pipe in his possession. The report said Eybers admitted calling Crump the racial slur.

Eybers was booked on charges of congregating for an unlawful purpose and possession of drug paraphernalia.

He is being held in the Charleston County Detention Center with bond set at $722.

The Charlotte Observer reported that Eybers, who listed a home address in Arlington, Virginia, is a guitarist in a band called Face Control. It was not immediately clear what he was doing in Charleston.

Crump has covered the Ku Klux Klan and interviewed many of its leaders over the years, both with hoods and without, The Charlotte Observer reported.

“None of them have ever called me the n-word,” Crump told the newspaper.

[otherone]

Eybers was booked on charges of congregating for an unlawful purpose

I suppose he had a mouse in his pocket.

[juleswin]

Ah, Drudge is at it again trying to stoke racial flames by posting this article with a very questionable and possibly misleading headline. For anyone who is too lazy to read the actual article, Brian Eybers did not get arrested for calling Mr. Crumps the n-word, he was arrested for this.


Crump called police and told them he was being harassed and was called the n-word by a guy who wouldn’t get out of the way, and he asked for someone to come and “run him off.”

and the charges that were filed against him are


According to a police report, Eybers was arrested for disorderly conduct. Officers said they also found a crack pipe in his possession. The report said Eybers admitted calling Crump the racial slur.

In conclusion, the headline gives the impression that a man was arrested for saying the n word when in fact he was arrested for not getting out of the way of Mr. Crump. Personally, I wouldn't get all hot and bothered if someone called me the n ward and I definitely wouldn't have confronted him. But again like using the n word, confronting someone who insulted you is NOT a crime. You do not get arrested for calling someone the n word

[John F Kennedy III]

From Drudge;

Veteran TV reporter harassed with racial slurs; man arrested

http://www.wyff4.com/news/Veteran-TV-reporter-harassed-with-racial-slurs-man-arrested/42171586

CHARLESTON, S.C. —Racial slurs against a veteran TV news reporter were caught on camera by the reporter’s videographer, and the man who is accused of hurling the insults was arrested.

Longtime reporter and documentarian Steve Crump, 59, of WBTV in Charlotte was in downtown Charleston on Oct. 8 working on Hurricane Matthew coverage. He and his photographer had just finished an interview and were walking to their news van on Broad Street when a man who was sitting on the sidewalk, later identified as Brian Eybers of Virginia, called Crump a racial slur, authorities said.

On video, Crump is recorded walking over to the man and asking if he called him the n-word, to which Eybers responds, “Yes, I believe I did.”

Eybers then said the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and God gave him the right to call Crump slurs, and he said he is “superior” to Crump.

"You really are a (slur),” Eybers says. “You’re ignorant.”

With Eybers recording on his iPad and WBTV photographer Devin Futrelle shooting video, the verbal confrontation continued until Crump got into the news vehicle. Eybers then positioned himself in front of the vehicle so Crump and Futrelle could not leave.

Crump called police and told them he was being harassed and was called the n-word by a guy who wouldn’t get out of the way, and he asked for someone to come and “run him off.”

Police arrived at the scene, and ended up putting Eybers in handcuffs on the front steps of a nearby Catholic church.

According to a police report, Eybers was arrested for disorderly conduct. Officers said they also found a crack pipe in his possession. The report said Eybers admitted calling Crump the racial slur.

Eybers was booked on charges of congregating for an unlawful purpose and possession of drug paraphernalia.

He is being held in the Charleston County Detention Center with bond set at $722.

The Charlotte Observer reported that Eybers, who listed a home address in Arlington, Virginia, is a guitarist in a band called Face Control. It was not immediately clear what he was doing in Charleston.

Crump has covered the Ku Klux Klan and interviewed many of its leaders over the years, both with hoods and without, The Charlotte Observer reported.

“None of them have ever called me the n-word,” Crump told the newspaper.

Calling someone a racial slur is illegal?

[Spikender]

Officers said they also found a crack pipe in his possession.

This part shouldn't be funny to me, but it is. Just seems randomly thrown in there, like "Yeah Eybers was in Crump's way and he was throwing out racial slurs, oh, and he had a crack pipe".

Good times.

[juleswin]

Calling someone a racial slur is illegal?

I found a much better article with the video of the confrontation in it. The video actually showed Brian blocking the TV van from moving which is true reason why he was arrested. It wasn't because he called him the N word.



After Crump turned to leave, Eybers stood in front of the news van, blocking it from leaving. Crump called police.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/media-scene-blog/article109052182.html#storylink=cpy

There is still nothing in the constitution that makes it legal to block a man's van from moving. Please read the article instead of going by the very misleading thread headline.

[The Northbreather]

I found a much better article with the video of the confrontation in it. The video actually showed Brian blocking the TV van from moving which is true reason why he was arrested. It wasn't because he called him the N word.



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/media-scene-blog/article109052182.html#storylink=cpy

There is still nothing in the constitution that makes it legal to block a man's van from moving. Please read the article instead of going by the very misleading thread headline.

Exactly. Sensationalism at its best. Misleading headline.

[Spikender]

It's a van. He's a man. You do the math. The only way a man can block a van is if you don't slam on the gas, understand?

[Ender]

It's a van. He's a man. You do the math. The only way a man can block a van is if you don't slam on the gas, understand?

You sir, are a poet
And do not even know it. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01i19qog8Pw

[sam1952]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnkv76rNL4


Test

Sorry, my dumb-ass can't figure out how to post a video, tried but didn't work.

Any interest in N word Lenny Bruce click on this...

[osan]

You sir, are a poet
And do not even know it. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01i19qog8Pw

I just watched this last week. Anthony Andrews is fab.

Hmmmm, methinks I may watch it again.

[TheCount]

I see you're establishing a fine tradition of posting threads with completely false headlines, starting with this one: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502462-Dems-firebomb-Repubs-headquarters

[tod evans]

I see you're establishing a fine tradition of posting threads with completely false headlines, starting with this one: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502462-Dems-firebomb-Repubs-headquarters

Here ya' go;

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Maybe Matt'll care about your opinion.

[juleswin]

Here ya' go;

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Maybe Matt'll care about your opinion.

Was it also Matt that wrote this?

"Arrested for saying verboten word"

Sorry, you can't blame Matt for that thread title, this one is on you.

[tod evans]

Was it also Matt that wrote this?

"Arrested for saying verboten word"

Sorry, you can't blame Matt for that thread title, this one is on you.

Nope I condensed Matt's verbiage, Matt's actually says;

"Man jailed after hurling racial slurs at reporter"


Those two should have come to blows instead of bickering like children and calling authority figures to settle their differences.

People aren't nice, laws and cameras won't change that.

[TheCount]

Nope I condensed Matt's verbiage, Matt's actually says;

"Man jailed after hurling racial slurs at reporter"


After does not mean because.


"Man dies in car accident after drinking Starbucks" != "Man dies because he drank Starbucks"

[juleswin]

Nope I condensed Matt's verbiage, Matt's actually says;

Man jailed after hurling racial slurs at reporter.

The tone and meaning are equivalent...

Don't like it?

Why do you suppose that is?

What I don't like is that when you condense the original headline, you usually end up butchering the original meaning of the headline. For example you using "verboten" and "for" in the thread headline totally changes the meaning of the sentence. The OP actually wasn't very misleading, it only gave the impression that he harassed and used racial slur and then got arrested by the police. It just omits something more important he did between the racial slur and the arrest but it didnt not say he was arrested "for" using racial slurs. You also did this with the "dems firebomb republican headquarters" which is not what the article or the original headlines says. The articles talks about dems being accused of causing fire to the headquarters.

See how many people responded to the headline change thinking that police now go around arresting people for using racial slurs. I have a feeling that you are playing to the "woe onto me crowd" who believe that the blacks are coming to take away all their freedoms. And this play brings along undeserved hostility towards black people. And don't get me wrong, this would be fair game if it was true but in this instance, it is a lie.

And why won't he fight him? maybe he is not a fighter. Not all men can throw it down or maybe he has too much respect for himself to be caught on tape fighting a drug user.

[tod evans]

What I don't like is that when you condense the original headline, you usually end up butchering the original meaning of the headline. For example you using "verboten" and "for" in the thread headline totally changes the meaning of the sentence. The OP actually wasn't very misleading, it only gave the impression that he harassed and used racial slur and then got arrested by the police. It just omits something more important he did between the racial slur and the arrest but it didnt not say he was arrested "for" using racial slurs. You also did this with the "dems firebomb republican headquarters" which is not what the article or the original headlines says. The articles talks about dems being accused of causing fire to the headquarters.

See how many people responded to the headline change thinking that police now go around arresting people for using racial slurs. I have a feeling that you are playing to the "woe onto me crowd" who believe that the blacks are coming to take away all their freedoms. And this play brings along undeserved hostility towards black people. And don't get me wrong, this would be fair game if it was true but in this instance, it is a lie.

And why won't he fight him? maybe he is not a fighter. Not all men can throw it down or maybe he has too much respect for himself to be caught on tape fighting a drug user.

Honestly I read Drudge's headline and skimmed the article over coffee with several other windows open, thought it'd be of interest here and cut-n-pasted.

The furthest thing from my mind when I cut-n-paste any article, or write a thread title, is somebodies feelings.

One could realistically say it was because of white dudes utterance that he ended up in jail, sure there was more BS that took place but the predicating issue was what he said.

The black dude would have been justified punching him in the mouth, I see failure to do so as lacking self respect, not having too much.

If you pay attention I post the same way about everyone, whites, blacks injuns and broads, pollacks, micks, joos and limeys.............Politically correct feel good speech is a big problem for me and I'm not going to abide by its use.

I didn't research the article in the OP further because to me it wasn't important and honestly it's still not.

The issue you didn't even mention, and the reason I thought the article was worth posting, is that racial strife continues, just as the media seems to want and in this instance it was the black guy who called the kops to come protect his delicate sensibilities instead of the other way around...

[Slave Mentality]

They should have run his ass over, but then again I would worry about hurting the van.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

"The N word." LOL. Pantywaist society.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I see you're establishing a fine tradition of posting threads with completely false headlines, starting with this one: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502462-Dems-firebomb-Repubs-headquarters

LOL. You're the one claiming to be a "supporting member" when you are not. You voted for Obama twice and are for Clinton. You are violating the rules of the forum and have the nerve to use the word "false."

[Suzanimal]

1. I've been called worse by better people.

2. I've removed hobo's from a bar with less drama and without assistance. Actually, lots of them. I'm the hobo whisperer.

Seriously, though, why on earth would you even bother to engage someone who's obviously "not right". I don't get it.

[oyarde]

This part shouldn't be funny to me, but it is. Just seems randomly thrown in there, like "Yeah Eybers was in Crump's way and he was throwing out racial slurs, oh, and he had a crack pipe".

Good times.

I was expecting this crack pipe . When I was young I carried a hash pipe , but I did not go out of my way to draw attention to the fact I was high .

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

.


Oh yeah, neg rep.

[Spikender]

I was expecting this crack pipe . When I was young I carried a hash pipe , but I did not go out of my way to draw attention to the fact I was high .

I'm sure the guy just smoked tobacco out of it and just wanted a crack pipe for added flair and intrigue.

[Jesse James]

I found a much better article with the video of the confrontation in it. The video actually showed Brian blocking the TV van from moving which is true reason why he was arrested. It wasn't because he called him the N word.



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/media-scene-blog/article109052182.html#storylink=cpy

There is still nothing in the constitution that makes it legal to block a man's van from moving. Please read the article instead of going by the very misleading thread headline.
do you understand the constitution? it doesn't "make" things legal.

[Jesse James]

What I don't like is that when you condense the original headline, you usually end up butchering the original meaning of the headline. For example you using "verboten" and "for" in the thread headline totally changes the meaning of the sentence. The OP actually wasn't very misleading, it only gave the impression that he harassed and used racial slur and then got arrested by the police. It just omits something more important he did between the racial slur and the arrest but it didnt not say he was arrested "for" using racial slurs. You also did this with the "dems firebomb republican headquarters" which is not what the article or the original headlines says. The articles talks about dems being accused of causing fire to the headquarters.

See how many people responded to the headline change thinking that police now go around arresting people for using racial slurs. I have a feeling that you are playing to the "woe onto me crowd" who believe that the blacks are coming to take away all their freedoms. And this play brings along undeserved hostility towards black people. And don't get me wrong, this would be fair game if it was true but in this instance, it is a lie.

And why won't he fight him? maybe he is not a fighter. Not all men can throw it down or maybe he has too much respect for himself to be caught on tape fighting a drug user.
you are nitpicking. Drudge fucked up and OP fucked up. case closed.

[Jesse James]

LOL. You're the one claiming to be a "supporting member" when you are not. You voted for Obama twice and are for Clinton. You are violating the rules of the forum and have the nerve to use the word "false."
Obama > McCain and Romney
Trump > Clinton
War > Economy and civil liberties

[juleswin]

you are nitpicking. Drudge $#@!ed up and OP $#@!ed up. case closed.

The drudge headline is actually correct, it is only misleading in the sense that it omitted the reason why he got arrested but

Veteran TV reporter harassed with racial slurs; man arrested = Arrested for saying racial slur.

And drudge did not fu*k up because they post the headlines of original articles and they are consistent on that.

Lastly, I meant to say there is nothing in the constitution that grants you the right to stand in front of man's car blocking his way. But I am sure you didn't know what I was trying to say and wasn't at all trying to nitpick.

[Jesse James]

the constitution doesn't grant rights, it gives the government the ability to enforce laws.

whoever made the headline clearly tried to make it seem like the guy was arrested for the slur, so I'm gonna say ya, they fucked up

[presence]

I meant to say there is nothing in the constitution that grants you the right to stand in front of man's car blocking his way.

hmm

I find some of this troubling.

1) The constitution doesn't grant rights; rights are inherent; the constitution affirms rights.

2) The constitution doesn't allow for public roads

3) In most jurisdictions pedestrian comes first; you cannot ram a protester with a vehicle; the man on foot has right of way.


Which is why the only thing the man was charged with is the statutory and ambiguous "disorderly conduct".



disorderly conduct statutes give police officers and other authorities fairly broad discretion
to arrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest) people whose activities they find undesirable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

[juleswin]

hmm

I find some of this troubling.

1) The constitution doesn't grant rights; rights are inherent; the constitution affirms rights.

2) The constitution doesn't allow for public roads

3) In most jurisdictions pedestrian comes first; you cannot ram a protester with a vehicle; the man on foot has right of way.


Which is why the only thing the man was charged with is the statutory and ambiguous "disorderly conduct".




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

You are right about the constitution part and thanks for the correction.

But I don't agree with you on the part about the law being ambiguous. This is because in most lines of work, the workers create categorizes to categorize items involved in it. So for example, obstructing traffic is a form of disorderly conduct and that is what it is under. This is why the charge was disorderly conduct and not "man standing in front of van and not moving when he is told to leave".

[presence]

So for example, obstructing traffic is a form of disorderly conduct

is it though?

or is it the emergent order of the catallaxy?

is the disorder actually the officer interfering in a statutory ambiguous manner to a non-violent non-thieving assertive interaction between two free men?

[TheCount]

LOL. You're the one claiming to be a "supporting member" when you are not. You voted for Obama twice and are for Clinton. You are violating the rules of the forum and have the nerve to use the word "false."

Nothing about your post is correct.

http://reaction.club/r/hqg-2549.gif

[juleswin]

is it though?

or is it the emergent order of the catallaxy?

is the disorder actually the officer interfering in a statutory ambiguous manner to a non-violent non-thieving assertive interaction between two free men?

Jesus H Christ. I can't believe you are trying very hard to complicate this simple issue of law enforcement and yes he was obstructing traffic. Standing in front of a van trying to move is traffic obstruction. I just love how you injected "free" men into the conversation like it would make a difference if either or both of the men weren't "free". Btw, aren't you one of those PRF members that believe we are all still slaves? if yes, then how can they be free men?

And no, the police officer is not interfering in anything because he was invited by one of the parties involved. I would like to see what you would do when a really muscular non violent(not to be confused with 0 potential for violence), non thieving assertive free man blocks the way to your house.

[Ender]

I just watched this last week. Anthony Andrews is fab.

Hmmmm, methinks I may watch it again.

Anthony Andrews is the best! Can't imagine anyone else as The Pimpernel. ;)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Nothing about your post is correct.

http://reaction.club/r/hqg-2549.gif


Oh, but it is correct. You and your buddy ZippyJuan voted for Obama and will vote for Clinton.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[oyarde]

so, what's the bottom line? Was he arrested for saying the word, or for obstructing traffic?

Obstructing traffic by crack pipe .

[tod evans]

so, what's the bottom line? Was he arrested for saying the word, or for obstructing traffic?

Yes, no.............Depends?

All the above...

One thing's for sure, the black dude called the kops..

[juleswin]

Yes, no.............Depends?

All the above...

One thing's for sure, the black dude called the kops..

What does it depend on to be a yes he was arrested for using the n word? please tell me what it depends on. The video and the article (not headline) have made it perfectly clear that he was NOT arrested for the n word. Why are you being deliberately obtuse about this topic? there is really no ambiguity here. Watch the video, read the article and read what the "kops" gave as the reason for the arrest. It's like you want him to be arrested for using the n word.

Yes the black guy called the cops but that is not being disputed by anyone.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[tod evans]

What does it depend on to be a yes he was arrested for using the n word? please tell me what it depends on. The video and the article (not headline) have made it perfectly clear that he was NOT arrested for the n word. Why are you being deliberately obtuse about this topic? there is really no ambiguity here. Watch the video, read the article and read what the "kops" gave as the reason for the arrest. It's like you want him to be arrested for using the n word.

Yes the black guy called the cops but that is not being disputed by anyone.

What part of the initial spouting off of niqquer, (not the fucking "N" word) do you have trouble grasping?

If there had been no initial name calling there would have been no escalation and no subsequent arrest.

It's extremely difficult to not be able to draw that line between uttering niqquer and being arrested at the beck and call of the very niqquer who was offended and who escalated the exchange instead of ending it there and then as most men would have, hell most women......

Good grief, "N" word..........What's become of society that people are so thin skinned?

I don't get my nickers all twisted up when people refer to me as a honky or a hillbilly...

[tod evans]

If the reason was obstructing traffic, why the misleading headline?

Mine, Drudges, or the person who wrote the article I cut-n-pasted?

I 'splained my translation........Not to juleswin's satisfaction but it's all I've got...:o

[cajuncocoa]

//

[tod evans]

I know why Drudge misleads. Usually when new information comes in some indication that a story has been debunked (or misleading) used to be added to the topic title.

I've never been able to edit a thread title after 5 minutes or so, has something changed?

I'll try it with this'n.......


[edit]

Well whadda ya' know........At some point a switch was flipped, fixed now.

[edit again]

switch didn't stay flipped.......:confused: I'd changed it to "Arrested after saying verboten word" which of course would be completely accurate but it didn't stick...

[juleswin]

What part of the initial spouting off of niqquer, (not the $#@!ing "N" word) do you have trouble grasping?

If there had been no initial name calling there would have been no escalation and no subsequent arrest.

It's extremely difficult to not be able to draw that line between uttering niqquer and being arrested at the beck and call of the very niqquer who was offended and who escalated the exchange instead of ending it there and then as most men would have, hell most women......

Good grief, "N" word..........What's become of society that people are so thin skinned?

I don't get my nickers all twisted up when people refer to me as a honky or a hillbilly...

You know, one of your previous posts you talked about how you didn't have time to read the article and that was why you put a misleading title to the article iin place of the sorta misleading original title. Now it seems like you don't consider the original thread title to be misleading.

Yes, I agree that if he did not say the N word, none of this would have happened. But that doesn't mean it is the reason why he was arrested. The n word led to the confrontation, the confrontation led to him standing in front of his car and which then led to the arrest. The way you reason, then one could say by extension that his mother birthing him led to his arrest. It just happened to take a few extra thousands steps but he was arrested because his mother birthed him in the USA. Sometimes I wonder if something is lost in translation.

I agree with you, the news was thinned skin, he should have let it go, should have pushed him to the side without calling the cops. I wish black people and other minority groups didn't get all hot and bothered by racial slurs. He could have done a dozen other things to resolve the problem before calling the cops but for whatever reason, he choose the easy way out. But the cops did not arrest him for saying the n -word. To say it in a different way, he could have done everything he did 5x over and still wouldn't have been arrested on that day had he not stood in front of the news van blocking them from moving. Hence standing and blocking his van(and drugs) is the reason why he was arrested.

[tod evans]

You know, one of your previous posts you talked about how you didn't have time to read the article and that was why you put a misleading title to the article iin place of the sorta misleading original title. Now it seems like you don't consider the original thread title to be misleading.

Yes, I agree that if he did not say the N word, none of this would have happened. But that doesn't mean it is the reason why he was arrested. The n word led to the confrontation, the confrontation led to him standing in front of his car and which then led to the arrest. The way you reason, then one could say by extension that his mother birthing him led to his arrest. It just happened to take a few extra thousands steps but he was arrested because his mother birthed him in the USA. Sometimes I wonder if something is lost in translation.

I agree with you, the news was thinned skin, he should have let it go, should have pushed him to the side without calling the cops. I wish black people and other minority groups didn't get all hot and bothered by racial slurs. He could have done a dozen other things to resolve the problem before calling the cops but for whatever reason, he choose the easy way out. But the cops did not arrest him for saying the n -word. To say it in a different way, he could have done everything he did 5x over and still wouldn't have been arrested on that day had he not stood in front of the news van blocking them from moving. Hence standing and blocking his van(and drugs) is the reason why he was arrested.

The kop would never have been there and the idiot would have still been sucking on his glass dick if the black guy had either punched him out or ignored him..

But................Without the utterance there would have been no interaction that lead to arrest.....

Wonder what inspired the crack whore to spout off in the first place? That seems to be mysteriously missing.....

Junkies and suits don't usually mix it up unless it's in a courtroom.

[juleswin]

The kop would never have been there and the idiot would have still been sucking on his glass dick if the black guy had either punched him out or ignored him..

But................Without the utterance there would have been no interaction that lead to arrest.....

Wonder what inspired the crack whore to spout off in the first place? That seems to be mysteriously missing.....

Junkies and suits don't usually mix it up unless it's in a courtroom.

Don't you see, all that is beside the point. He could have called him the N word 1000x times and nobody would have arrested him. The black guys would just have had his feelings hurt but that would be the end of it. He couldn't have called the cops on the count of someone calling him names, lucky for all of us n the US there are no verboten words in the law books. The arrest is because of the obstruction of traffic and the crack pipe and nothing else. Take those 2 factors out and leaving everything else in and he would be a free man today.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I watched the video. White guy seemed to be high as a Jap.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's extremely difficult to not be able to draw that line between uttering niqquer and being arrested at the beck and call of the very niqquer ...


I know a totally open web site like RPF would never, ever censor such words that refer to black people, so that must be some kind of Cajun word.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's not like this source is the only one that composes headlines that might not match a story. Go to Yahoo news. Their headlines are the worst. Everybody else does it. Just part of competition.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's a van. He's a man. You do the math. The only way a man can block a van is if you don't slam on the gas, understand?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. The driver could have also inched up. He could have even backed up and side swiped the white guy, Tony Stewart-Kevin Ward style. He could have also stayed longer and possibly gotten a better news story than he already had. Dipshit honky lost all the way around.

[enhanced_deficit]

Miss the days of Iraqi Freedom war under Bush, there was so much racial unity then and never heard of such a single incidence during entire 8 years of Bush Presidency. He was not even a historic President. One wonders how did he do it.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[tod evans]

The Dago's and Pollacks still mix it up, same with the Micks-n-Joo's....

People are different and differences cause problems.

I don't want to live in a homogeneous society..

It's okay to be different, even more important it's okay to dislike someone who's different from you....

Good people are polite about their dislikes and differences but they still exist, and all people aren't good and polite..