If anyone filled that man in on the place being a part of America, I wonder what he had to say in return.
God bless you and the girl always!!!
Holly
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A man harasses a woman for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt, saying it's 'un-American'
- Thread starter NewsVine_Mariyam
- Start date
God bless you and the girl always!!!
Holly
If the woman was carrying she would have at least had a force equalizing assurance that she could protect herself if it came down to violence. In that kind of threatening situation she correctly informed the aggressor that she felt threatened & warned him not to come closer. What happens after that is more on him than on her!
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #43
The findings of the legislature for malicious harassment are below. The actual text of the law is at the hyperlink that followsThanks, I've disliked the MSM for probably a decade now... They're little more than late night talk shows anymore; fuck ton of [biased] opinions with occasional news sprinkled in - total crap.
Anyway, yeah, so the police work for the government, typically municipal government; that's why they paint city names on their cars and have city names on their badges and patches. Sometimes they work for the state, when policing state lands, we have a lot of those variety in Alaska - they're called "Alaska State Troopers" there was a TV show about them on Discovery for years. (Are you even American?)
"legal concepts" - Well you are arguing "bias harassment" which is a bullshit term that attempts to apply "racism" to pretty much any un-liked speech. The fascist lefts latest attempt to make freedom of speech illegal. Again though, IF that is actually the law in your state, then it may not (probably doesn't) apply in most states. Like in Alaska, what the guy did isn't illegal. Annoying and shitty, sure, but not a crime - which means an officer wouldn't be able to arrest him; it would be a governmental infringement of the first amendment for him to do so. In your state apparently the first isn't protected (unless you're making shit up/wrong about the application of the "law" you're citing) and would likely be struct down as an infringement of free speech were it heard in a real court. You'd have to actually show that the woman was harmed by his words; considering that she was actively bitching back at him - aka engaged in verbal debate with him - it's highly doubtful such a legal argument of harm would fly.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 9A.36.078
Malicious harassment—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicaps are serious and increasing. The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family. The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias. Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.
The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
RCW 9A.36.078
Malicious harassment—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicaps are serious and increasing. The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family. The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias. Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.
The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
The 1st amendment is a prohibition on the federal government interferring with one's freedom of speech but the courts have ruled that this extends to state actors as well. This guy is not "the government" or acting as an agent of any government agency, he was just an intoxicated and obnoxious bigot, however because his inital behavior was so irrational (who in the hell goes off because they're offended by a non-vulgar or obsence item of clothing) I can't fault the lady in the video for being concerned and wanting the officer to intervene if he was getting closer to her than she wanted and wouldn't cease his behavior towards her. The following is link for an article by the ACLU which explains application of the Constitutional amendments to the goverment and actually cites a case where there was a 1st amendment claim against an entity that was not a government:
Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)
The police do not have to make an arrest, but being a law enforcement officer he certainly could have and should have used his authority to get the guy to stop harassing her. There is really no excuse for him refusing to do so, in my opinion. I know I wouldn't have reacted well to being acosted in that manner.
Last edited:
But why are they so friggin hateful of EVERYONE!That's just typical of these people. They don't understand things, but they think they know it all.
And your side isn't hateful ?
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #45
Which side would that be?And your side isn't hateful ?
Which side would that be?And your side isn't hateful ?
Don't patronize me.
CHAZBUKOWSKI
Silver Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 542
- 96
- 90
Maybe, maybe not. Might be more of an example of drop-dead ignorance.A man harasses a woman for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt, saying it's 'un-American' - CNN
(CNN)An Illinois park is investigating after a woman accused one of its police officers of standing by as a man harassed her for wearing a shirt with the Puerto Rican flag, saying it was un-American.
Mia Irizarry says she was trying to celebrate her 24th birthday in the Forest Preserves of Cook County last month when the man approached her asking her why she was wearing the sleeveless Puerto Rico flag shirt, which also had "Puerto Rico" written below the V neckline.
Irizarry recorded the encounter on her phone, saying she felt threatened, and posted the video to Facebook.
On Monday, Forest Preserves of Cook County tweeted that it was aware of the June 14 incident and video.
"After the incident, we immediately launched an investigation pursuant to our personnel policies into the response of our officer," it said, in a series of posts on Twitter.
"The investigation is ongoing and the officer involved has been assigned to desk duty pending the outcome. The intoxicated individual involved in the incident was arrested and charged with assault and disorderly conduct.
So my only question is since Puerto Rico is a part of "America" anyone convinced that this wasn't "racism"?
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #48
I wonder if he would have responded the same way if it was an all American looking white person wearing the Puerto Rico shirt? Wouldn't normal people think maybe it's a shirt that the person picked up while on vacation there? Normal people who aren't racist I mean.Maybe, maybe not. Might be more of an example of drop-dead ignorance.
EverCurious
Gold Member
The findings of the legislature for malicious harassment are below. The actual text of the law is at the hyperlink that followsThanks, I've disliked the MSM for probably a decade now... They're little more than late night talk shows anymore; fuck ton of [biased] opinions with occasional news sprinkled in - total crap.
Anyway, yeah, so the police work for the government, typically municipal government; that's why they paint city names on their cars and have city names on their badges and patches. Sometimes they work for the state, when policing state lands, we have a lot of those variety in Alaska - they're called "Alaska State Troopers" there was a TV show about them on Discovery for years. (Are you even American?)
"legal concepts" - Well you are arguing "bias harassment" which is a bullshit term that attempts to apply "racism" to pretty much any un-liked speech. The fascist lefts latest attempt to make freedom of speech illegal. Again though, IF that is actually the law in your state, then it may not (probably doesn't) apply in most states. Like in Alaska, what the guy did isn't illegal. Annoying and shitty, sure, but not a crime - which means an officer wouldn't be able to arrest him; it would be a governmental infringement of the first amendment for him to do so. In your state apparently the first isn't protected (unless you're making shit up/wrong about the application of the "law" you're citing) and would likely be struct down as an infringement of free speech were it heard in a real court. You'd have to actually show that the woman was harmed by his words; considering that she was actively bitching back at him - aka engaged in verbal debate with him - it's highly doubtful such a legal argument of harm would fly.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 9A.36.078
Malicious harassment—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicaps are serious and increasing. The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family. The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias. Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.
The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
The 1st amendment is a prohibition on the federal government interferring with one's freedom of speech but the courts have ruled that this extends to state actors as well. This guy is not "the government" or acting as an agent of any government agency, he was just an intoxicated and obnoxious bigot, however because his inital behavior was so irrational (who in the hell goes off because they're offended by a non-vulgar or obsence item of clothing) I can't fault the lady in the video for being concerned and wanting the officer to intervene if he was getting closer to her than she wanted and wouldn't cease his behavior towards her. The following is link for an article by the ACLU which explains application of the Constitutional amendments to the goverment and actually cites a case where there was a 1st amendment claim against an entity that was not a government:
Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)
The police do not have to make an arrest, but being a law enforcement officer he certainly could have and should have used his authority to get the guy to stop harassing her. There is really no excuse for him refusing to do so, in my opinion. I know I wouldn't have reacted well to being acosted in that manner.
It happened in Washington State then (?) thanks for that info though I'd like a cite if ya could because CNN says it was Illinois...
I do also thank you that you highlighted the failure of your own argument (even if it /had/ been in Washington), saves me the time.
By highlighting "national origin" you mean America right... you do realize that Porto Rico is part of America, yeah? [Maybe you should have tried the "racism" angle like I suggested son, had a better chance.]
Even CNN admits that in their article: "This was an attack of an American citizen on another American citizen," he said. "Puerto Ricans have been part of the United States and we've been fighting wars with other fellow Americans. We are proud US citizens. People need to understand that."
Anyway, so what "reasonable harm" was the gal in from the drunk and her bitching at each other? I didn't see it, sorry.
He was being a dick, being a dick isn't a crime. (Yet anyway... the third-wave feminists are trying though
)
Last edited:
EverCurious
Gold Member
Like I said, you are full of crap. You are desperate to project a defense for the drunk harasser and the negligent cop. We don't need a long list of what if's and excuses. The cop has a standard by the book protocol he should have followed. Police policy in every jurisdiction in America dictates he should have done what I posted. Separate the parties, question the antagonist, determine if a law was or is being broken. Basic and simple. He did not follow police procedure and policy.You are so full of crap it is pathetic. The cop should have immediately stopped the drunk and removed him from the pavilion and detained him on suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The cop had the legal right and an obligation to hold him for 20 minutes (Supreme Court ruling) while he questioned him and ascertained if a crime was being committed. Hence, the cop could have and should have prevented the altercation and harassment as soon as the drunk began speaking and approaching the lady with the legal permit and permission to be where she was and doing what she was doing.You probably shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot particularly since you don't appear to understand the legal "concepts" referred to in my response.Who do you think the police work for idiot?
Your states harassment laws (which sound like hate speech laws and would likely be unconstitutional if brought to a real court) may not apply in this case; are you in the same state this incident took place in?
Dude, if arrested, was probably arrested for touching the other man at the very end of the video or just public drunkenness, not for anything he said to offend this gal. Though I'd love to see the report on his arrest if you could dig it up for us.
So instead of me guessing, why don't you explain who the police work for and why you think they shouldn't have intervened? They're more than happy to show up for a bunch of other BS calls people make, but having a officer standing there who refused to tell the guy to leave her alone makes him beyond useless. I don't know anyone police or security officers or even just men who are bystanders, who would have stood by and let him antagonize and harass her like that.
Oh and BTS I love your avatar.
Thanks, I've disliked the MSM for probably a decade now... They're little more than late night talk shows anymore; fuck ton of [biased] opinions with occasional news sprinkled in - total crap.
Anyway, yeah, so the police work for the government, typically municipal government; that's why they paint city names on their cars and have city names on their badges and patches. Sometimes they work for the state, when policing state lands, we have a lot of those variety in Alaska - they're called "Alaska State Troopers" there was a TV show about them on Discovery for years. (Are you even American?)
"legal concepts" - Well you are arguing "bias harassment" which is a bullshit term that attempts to apply "racism" to pretty much any un-liked speech. The fascist lefts latest attempt to make freedom of speech illegal. Again though, IF that is actually the law in your state, then it may not (probably doesn't) apply in most states. Like in Alaska, what the guy did isn't illegal. Annoying and shitty, sure, but not a crime - which means an officer wouldn't be able to arrest him; it would be a governmental infringement of the first amendment for him to do so. In your state apparently the first isn't protected (unless you're making shit up/wrong about the application of the "law" you're citing) and would likely be struct down as an infringement of free speech were it heard in a real court. You'd have to actually show that the woman was harmed by his words; considering that she was actively bitching back at him - aka engaged in verbal debate with him - it's highly doubtful such a legal argument of harm would fly.
What a real cop would have done.
You don't even know if the cop had already talked to the guy. You don't even know if this woman started it. You don't even know if that guy had a permit to be there as well.
You have a what three minute clip that this person put up specifically to get your sympathy.
I got some questions; why was an officer already there? Pretty interesting that a police officer is in a seemingly empty park isn't it? I mean isn't the saying "where's a cop when you need one" - Bet that cop was called there - before the recording started. And on that matter, so how long had the girl been recording? Pretty interesting that she's got both this asshat and a cop there don't you think? I mean what are the chances that she'd have a cop there to complain about while this guy debated with her?
I'm simply feeling that the woman ain't as innocent as you want to assume. Guys an ass, and she's actively engaging him, one might say keeping him in the conversation with her instead of just ignoring his drunk ass. Why?
I could care less about the drunk frankly. IMO the woman was engaged in "unfriendly" dialog with a drunk; they bitched at each other. Big fucking deal.
Is that even a cop? I can't see the guy enough to tell. Is it Fish and Wildlife? A security guard? Do we know? I don't. CNN says it was in a state park, which would typically be F&G up here. Forest Preserves of Cook County - Chicago Forests, Prairies, Savannas, Wetlands is a state park...
I welcome any evidence you have though. It looks like Chicago police wear both brown and black uniforms - but so does F&G so, idk. The "Forest Preserves of Cook County" [website above] are the ones claiming their officer was in the wrong, state park with a police department? That's new to me, but I'm fine with it if that's the case. ~shrug~
Last edited:
A man harasses a woman for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt, saying it's 'un-American' - CNN
(CNN)An Illinois park is investigating after a woman accused one of its police officers of standing by as a man harassed her for wearing a shirt with the Puerto Rican flag, saying it was un-American.
Mia Irizarry says she was trying to celebrate her 24th birthday in the Forest Preserves of Cook County last month when the man approached her asking her why she was wearing the sleeveless Puerto Rico flag shirt, which also had "Puerto Rico" written below the V neckline.
Irizarry recorded the encounter on her phone, saying she felt threatened, and posted the video to Facebook.
On Monday, Forest Preserves of Cook County tweeted that it was aware of the June 14 incident and video.
"After the incident, we immediately launched an investigation pursuant to our personnel policies into the response of our officer," it said, in a series of posts on Twitter.
"The investigation is ongoing and the officer involved has been assigned to desk duty pending the outcome. The intoxicated individual involved in the incident was arrested and charged with assault and disorderly conduct.
So my only question is since Puerto Rico is a part of "America" anyone convinced that this wasn't "racism"?
Cops fail to arrest or site drunk asshole. It happens.
If that were a black guy harassing her, they've called in backup and then tazed or shot him.
A dirty corrupt cop has done irreparable damage to his police departments reputation. They will always be known as sub-standard officers and cowards.
A cop does nothing while woman pleads for protection from an angry drunk. All anyone needs to know.
A cop does nothing while woman pleads for protection from an angry drunk. All anyone needs to know.
EverCurious
Gold Member
Camp Quasi-Related:
I was in Vegas for my son's wedding last week. I ended up with a no smoking room at the resort (Tuscany Suites rocks btw, highly recommended.) On Sunday, I'm standing outside my hotel building having a cigarette when a guy approaches begging for a cigarette in broken English and hand gestures. I tell him no. (True story, in Alaska it's actually illegal to give beggers on the street shit.) Anyway, he gets belligerent, yelling at me whatever foreign language he was speaking (not Spanish, but IDK what language it was); flipping me off and stepping toward me. Called me a white bitch, the rest was foreign but unfriendly.
I'm all of #150, legit wet as I'd just got out of the shower (and that weight only because I was eating like a queen and retaining water like crazy cause of the heat, I'm usually around #135ish) All I had on me was a fucking bic lighter and a pack of smokes, wasn't even wearing a fucking bra cause it was early morning and no one was around... I don't know how to fight, I have body guards ya know? I'm a total pussy... I legit felt uncomfortable and I was worried the guy was going to get physical. He bitched at me for almost my entire cigarette and after telling him to go the fuck away I basically just stared at him "defiantly" (as best I could) and refused to engage him verbally.
Should that guy have been "arrested"? I don't think so. I think he was just stoned/drunk and pissed off that I didn't "comply" with his request. Dude was a dick and he tried to intimidate me into giving him free shit - but the reality is that he didn't do anything illegal. ~shrug~
I was in Vegas for my son's wedding last week. I ended up with a no smoking room at the resort (Tuscany Suites rocks btw, highly recommended.) On Sunday, I'm standing outside my hotel building having a cigarette when a guy approaches begging for a cigarette in broken English and hand gestures. I tell him no. (True story, in Alaska it's actually illegal to give beggers on the street shit.) Anyway, he gets belligerent, yelling at me whatever foreign language he was speaking (not Spanish, but IDK what language it was); flipping me off and stepping toward me. Called me a white bitch, the rest was foreign but unfriendly.
I'm all of #150, legit wet as I'd just got out of the shower (and that weight only because I was eating like a queen and retaining water like crazy cause of the heat, I'm usually around #135ish) All I had on me was a fucking bic lighter and a pack of smokes, wasn't even wearing a fucking bra cause it was early morning and no one was around... I don't know how to fight, I have body guards ya know? I'm a total pussy... I legit felt uncomfortable and I was worried the guy was going to get physical. He bitched at me for almost my entire cigarette and after telling him to go the fuck away I basically just stared at him "defiantly" (as best I could) and refused to engage him verbally.
Should that guy have been "arrested"? I don't think so. I think he was just stoned/drunk and pissed off that I didn't "comply" with his request. Dude was a dick and he tried to intimidate me into giving him free shit - but the reality is that he didn't do anything illegal. ~shrug~
- Banned
- #54
And if there were a cop nearby....and you asked him for help and he did nothing, you would have been ok with that, right?Camp Quasi-Related:
I was in Vegas for my son's wedding last week. I ended up with a no smoking room at the resort (Tuscany Suites rocks btw, highly recommended.) On Sunday, I'm standing outside my hotel building having a cigarette when a guy approaches begging for a cigarette in broken English and hand gestures. I tell him no. (True story, in Alaska it's actually illegal to give beggers on the street shit.) Anyway, he gets belligerent, yelling at me whatever foreign language he was speaking (not Spanish, but IDK what language it was); flipping me off and stepping toward me. Called me a white bitch, the rest was foreign but unfriendly.
I'm all of #150, legit wet as I'd just got out of the shower (and that weight only because I was eating like a queen and retaining water like crazy cause of the heat, I'm usually around #135ish) All I had on me was a fucking bic lighter and a pack of smokes, wasn't even wearing a fucking bra cause it was early morning and no one was around... I don't know how to fight, I have body guards ya know? I'm a total pussy... I legit felt uncomfortable and I was worried the guy was going to get physical. He bitched at me for almost my entire cigarette and after telling him to go the fuck away I basically just stared at him "defiantly" (as best I could) and refused to engage him verbally.
Should that guy have been "arrested"? I don't think so. I think he was just stoned/drunk and pissed off that I didn't "comply" with his request. Dude was a dick and he tried to intimidate me into giving him free shit - but the reality is that he didn't do anything illegal. ~shrug~
Don't know if he should have been arrested, but if a cop was present he would have had an obligation and duty to de-escalate the situation using the same protocol I posted about the park incident. Separate the parties and question the antagonist. Determine if a crime has been or is being committed.Camp Quasi-Related:
I was in Vegas for my son's wedding last week. I ended up with a no smoking room at the resort (Tuscany Suites rocks btw, highly recommended.) On Sunday, I'm standing outside my hotel building having a cigarette when a guy approaches begging for a cigarette in broken English and hand gestures. I tell him no. (True story, in Alaska it's actually illegal to give beggers on the street shit.) Anyway, he gets belligerent, yelling at me whatever foreign language he was speaking (not Spanish, but IDK what language it was); flipping me off and stepping toward me. Called me a white bitch, the rest was foreign but unfriendly.
I'm all of #150, legit wet as I'd just got out of the shower (and that weight only because I was eating like a queen and retaining water like crazy cause of the heat, I'm usually around #135ish) All I had on me was a fucking bic lighter and a pack of smokes, wasn't even wearing a fucking bra cause it was early morning and no one was around... I don't know how to fight, I have body guards ya know? I'm a total pussy... I legit felt uncomfortable and I was worried the guy was going to get physical. He bitched at me for almost my entire cigarette and after telling him to go the fuck away I basically just stared at him "defiantly" (as best I could) and refused to engage him verbally.
Should that guy have been "arrested"? I don't think so. I think he was just stoned/drunk and pissed off that I didn't "comply" with his request. Dude was a dick and he tried to intimidate me into giving him free shit - but the reality is that he didn't do anything illegal. ~shrug~
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,644
- 57,311
- 2,290
This is priceless.
An American rents some space at a public park. A drunken Trumpie notices she is wearing a T-shirt which has the Puerto Rican flag on it. This causes him to lose his shit and to start harassing her and telling her not to wear that kind of shirt in America.
He then asks if she is educated, and asks if she is a citizen.
It just doesn't get more deliciously ironic than that, ladies and gentlemen.
Meanwhile, the woman ask a nearby cop to protect her from the raving mad Trumpie who keeps invading her rented space to get in her face. He is clearly intoxicated.
The cop just stands there, silent. She repeatedly asks the cop to intervene while the guy keeps accosting her. The man physically approaches the woman within arm's length several times and the cop does nothing!
Finally, some other cops show up and arrest the drunken retard pseudocon.
Woman harassed for wearing Puerto Rico shirt ‘in America’ as officer stands by watching
“If you’re an American citizen you should not be wearing that shirt in America,” Trybus says.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
An American rents some space at a public park. A drunken Trumpie notices she is wearing a T-shirt which has the Puerto Rican flag on it. This causes him to lose his shit and to start harassing her and telling her not to wear that kind of shirt in America.
He then asks if she is educated, and asks if she is a citizen.
It just doesn't get more deliciously ironic than that, ladies and gentlemen.
Meanwhile, the woman ask a nearby cop to protect her from the raving mad Trumpie who keeps invading her rented space to get in her face. He is clearly intoxicated.
The cop just stands there, silent. She repeatedly asks the cop to intervene while the guy keeps accosting her. The man physically approaches the woman within arm's length several times and the cop does nothing!
Finally, some other cops show up and arrest the drunken retard pseudocon.
Woman harassed for wearing Puerto Rico shirt ‘in America’ as officer stands by watching
“If you’re an American citizen you should not be wearing that shirt in America,” Trybus says.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Last edited:
impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,944
- 290
thank god for the washington post for keeping us abreast of the stories that really matter
Dang, that's like something a lefty would do sober.
Crazy world.
Crazy world.
This is priceless.
An American rents some space at a public park. A drunken Trumpie notices she is wearing a T-shirt which has the Puerto Rican flag on it. This causes him to lose his shit and to start harassing her and telling her not to wear that kind of shirt in America.
He then asks if she is educated, and asks if she is a citizen.
It just doesn't get more deliciously ironic than that, ladies and gentlemen.
Meanwhile, the woman ask a nearby cop to protect her from the raving mad Trumpie who keeps invading her rented space to get in her face. He is clearly intoxicated.
The cop just stands there, silent. She repeatedly asks the cop to intervene while the guy keeps accosting her. The man physically approaches the woman within arm's length several times and the cop does nothing!
Finally, some other cops show up and arrest the drunken retard pseudocon.
Woman harassed for wearing Puerto Rico shirt ‘in America’ as officer stands by watching
“If you’re an American citizen you should not be wearing that shirt in America,” Trybus says.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Is that like a school telling kids not to wear US flag shirts, because they make illegal aliens feel bad?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 500
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 329
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 232
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 352
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 927
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-