Black Woman Reports White Man For Choking Her Son, Cop Shows Up And Attacks Her

[guno]

Another feral piggy

Walmart may be discontinuing the sale of Black Lives Matter t-shirts because a police union whined that the shirts hurt their precious little fee-fees, but the need for the message exists nonetheless. On Wednesday, an African-American Texas woman made the mistake of assuming the police would be on her side after she called to report that a white man choked her son. Unfortunately, as happens too often in America, he just decided to brutalize her and her family instead of dealing with the situation she was reporting.


Black Woman Reports White Man For Choking Her Son, Cop Shows Up And Attacks Her (VIDEO) | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

 

[ABikerSailor]

I saw that on the evening news today. Clearly, this officer doesn't have the temperament required for the job.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

She said the dude didn't have the right to choke a child and the cop says "why not?".

Then the cop doesn't address the assault on a child but instead questions his upbringing.
Then, curiously out of character, the mother gets mad and you know being an angry black man or woman is against the law. Smh

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

What "entire quote" are you talking about?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

If you watch the video, it's a white officer who is responding to a black woman, talking about a black child.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

If you watch the video, it's a white officer who is responding to a black woman, talking about a black child.

I watched the video. There is nothing to indicate race was a motivator in the officer's reaction. It could be, there just isn't anything that points to it specifically.

 

[Pete7469]

Here's the problem....

Parasites like guano are traitors. They're a danger to the republic and should be fertilizing North Korean Rice Farms.

When guano and assholes like him put out a video it's easy to dismiss it, because most of the time they're full of shit and take sides with scumbags. So it's easy to give the cop the benefit of the doubt, because sniveling piece of shit like guano howl when scumbag this like Trayvon and that thug in Ferguson get what's coming to them.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered. But it doesn't matter if he did or didn't. It doesn't give him the right to put his hands on him." The officer responds with, "Why not?"

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

What "entire quote" are you talking about?

He doesn't know but complaining about the entire quote has worked for him in the past so why not give it another go?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here's the problem....

Parasites like guano are traitors. They're a danger to the republic and should be fertilizing North Korean Rice Farms.

When guano and assholes like him put out a video it's easy to dismiss it, because most of the time they're full of shit and take sides with scumbags. So it's easy to give the cop the benefit of the doubt, because sniveling piece of shit like guano howl when scumbag this like Trayvon and that thug in Ferguson get what's coming to them.

But....this isn't about Guno but nice try at trolling.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered.

... and he responds with "Why not?" ... no need to respond to the rest of her blathering Dindonuttin garbage. It wasn't relevant to the case.

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

there is no evidence he had the kid in a 'choke hold', that's why, and the officer was responding to her first sentence. Just because the she kept on babbling doesn't change anything. Of course maybe you just don't care and prefer the distortion, like Skippy and his intellectual equal Guno do.

 

[Picaro]

Here's the problem....

Parasites like guano are traitors. They're a danger to the republic and should be fertilizing North Korean Rice Farms.

When guano and assholes like him put out a video it's easy to dismiss it, because most of the time they're full of shit and take sides with scumbags. So it's easy to give the cop the benefit of the doubt, because sniveling piece of shit like guano howl when scumbag this like Trayvon and that thug in Ferguson get what's coming to them.

But....this isn't about Guno but nice try at trolling.

Guno posted a thread on it, too, so yeah, it is about all of you parrots and your agendas.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered.

... and he responds with "Why not?" ... no need to respond to the rest of her blathering Dindonuttin garbage. It wasn't relevant to the case.

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

there is no evidence he had the kid in a 'choke hold', that's why, and the officer was responding to her first sentence. Just because the she kept on babbling doesn't change anything. Of course maybe you just don't care and prefer the distortion, like Skippy and his intellectual equal Guno do.

WTF are you talking about? He didn't respond after she said the accused man couldn't prove her son littered. He waited until after she made multiple statements, finishing with saying the accused man had no right to put his hands on her son, and you expect someone to believe the officer was only responding to the first sentence?

Even if I were to accept your claim, the officer does nothing to indicate that is what he means. Of course the woman thinks he is asking why the accused man doesn't have a right to put hands on her son, it's the last thing she said before the officer responded!

You appear to be engaging in serious mental gymnastics to try to justify the officer's response based on what's in the video.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

If you watch the video, it's a white officer who is responding to a black woman, talking about a black child.

Ah well, then there you go; black people are automatically exempt from stuff like littering people's yards and and crime, and it's racist to claim otherwise.

 

[SYTFE]

Everyone, just ignore Picaro. He doesn't think clearly when he's got a cock up his ass. He's only here to troll anyway.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered.

... and he responds with "Why not?" ... no need to respond to the rest of her blathering Dindonuttin garbage. It wasn't relevant to the case.

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

there is no evidence he had the kid in a 'choke hold', that's why, and the officer was responding to her first sentence. Just because the she kept on babbling doesn't change anything. Of course maybe you just don't care and prefer the distortion, like Skippy and his intellectual equal Guno do.

WTF are you talking about? He didn't respond after she said the accused man couldn't prove her son littered. He waited until after she made multiple statements, finishing with saying the accused man had no right to put his hands on her son, and you expect someone to believe the officer was only responding to the first sentence?

Even if I were to accept your claim, the officer does nothing to indicate that is what he means. Of course the woman thinks he is asking why the accused man doesn't have a right to put hands on her son, it's the last thing she said before the officer responded!

You appear to be engaging in serious mental gymnastics to try to justify the officer's response based on what's in the video.

Ah, now we know for certain you're an idiot. He answered her after she shut her loud stupid piehole and let him get a word in, dumbass.

 

[Pete7469]

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered. But it doesn't matter if he did or didn't. It doesn't give him the right to put his hands on him." The officer responds with, "Why not?"

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

The video is pretty choppy, I hope the cop had a camera or mic running if it has been edited.

That said, I don't trust anything libturds post because more often than not it's bullshit.

"Hands up don't shoot" and BLM destroyed any credibility these people have, so of course even their videos are suspect.

The same as NBC doctoring Zimmerman's 911 call in order to promote racial strife.

Keep lying to the public about shit like that. People will get so sick of it they'll watch the wolves eat your dumb asses.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The officer says, "Why not?" when the woman says that the man has no right to put his hands on her 7 year old son.

Bullshit. But do leave out the entire quote; otherwise there is no lie to peddle, right? Right. For those who are really interested in the entire quote he was responding to with "Why not?", try the video at the local news station, Channel 5 here in the DFW area.

I don't know if race played any role at all in the incident as the article assumes, but it certainly looked like the officer was very wrong in his reaction to the situation.

Should have just stopped at the part where you admit you don't know squat.

Here is what the woman said, "He can't prove to me that my son littered.

... and he responds with "Why not?" ... no need to respond to the rest of her blathering Dindonuttin garbage. It wasn't relevant to the case.

How is that somehow justified? If a 7 year old drops a paper on your lawn, do you have the right to put him in a choke hold? That's what the woman said happened, and whether it is or not, she clearly seems to believe it. By responding with, "Why not?" the officer is strongly implying that the man accused of putting a 7 year old boy in a choke hold for littering has the right to do so.

there is no evidence he had the kid in a 'choke hold', that's why, and the officer was responding to her first sentence. Just because the she kept on babbling doesn't change anything. Of course maybe you just don't care and prefer the distortion, like Skippy and his intellectual equal Guno do.

WTF are you talking about? He didn't respond after she said the accused man couldn't prove her son littered. He waited until after she made multiple statements, finishing with saying the accused man had no right to put his hands on her son, and you expect someone to believe the officer was only responding to the first sentence?

Even if I were to accept your claim, the officer does nothing to indicate that is what he means. Of course the woman thinks he is asking why the accused man doesn't have a right to put hands on her son, it's the last thing she said before the officer responded!

You appear to be engaging in serious mental gymnastics to try to justify the officer's response based on what's in the video.

Ah, now we know for certain you're an idiot. He answered here after she shut her loud stupid piehole and let him get a word in, dumbass.

And in your world, a person can respond to anything someone else says, no matter when they said it, and the person they are responding to should know just what they are referring to, is that it?