Black Man Attacks White Woman For Having Trump 'Make America Great Again' Sticker On Laptop

[Asclepias]

The Black guy handled this totally wrong. Instead of smashing the computer he should have smiled at her, invited her over for a booty call and she would have been voting for Clinton or Sanders.

Translation: He should have raped her.

Only if she mentioned it was a fantasy like a lot of white girls have about Black guys.

 

[Faun]

Assault can be justifiable when used in self defense. That was not the case here. She confronted him after learning he threatened to destroy her property and assaulted when he refused to delete his tweet.

They're both wrong. They should both be expelled. What you call, "defending" them.

He clearly provoked it. In a court of law, a judge would rule against the thug. You're on the wrong side of this issue. A woman throwing a cup of tea at a man does not give him the right to hit her in the throat. Who knows what else he would have done if there hadn't been others around to intervene? He should be expelled, she should be given an award for standing up to a thug.

You remain terminally stupid. Her assault was unjustified. She confronted him and threw her coffee on him. In a court of law, despite any jail time he might face for threatening to destroy property, she could face jail time for assault.

Let the ***** thug press charges against her and see what happens. The judge would ask what led up to it, she would show him/her the online threats and the judge would throw his case out. Would probably also charge the negro with assault and battery. Throwing tea at somebody does not justify being punched in the throat. You and your racist thug buddy Asswipe must be proud of yourselves for defending a man hitting a woman. You guys are a couple of pussies.

LOL

You're ******* deranged.

Your concession is noted, retard.

LOL

As if your last moronic post didn't already announce your surrender.

<smh>

 

[S.J.]

He clearly provoked it. In a court of law, a judge would rule against the thug. You're on the wrong side of this issue. A woman throwing a cup of tea at a man does not give him the right to hit her in the throat. Who knows what else he would have done if there hadn't been others around to intervene? He should be expelled, she should be given an award for standing up to a thug.

You remain terminally stupid. Her assault was unjustified. She confronted him and threw her coffee on him. In a court of law, despite any jail time he might face for threatening to destroy property, she could face jail time for assault.

Let the ***** thug press charges against her and see what happens. The judge would ask what led up to it, she would show him/her the online threats and the judge would throw his case out. Would probably also charge the negro with assault and battery. Throwing tea at somebody does not justify being punched in the throat. You and your racist thug buddy Asswipe must be proud of yourselves for defending a man hitting a woman. You guys are a couple of pussies.

LOL

You're ******* deranged.

Your concession is noted, retard.

LOL

As if your last moronic post didn't already announce your surrender.

<smh>

I'm sticking to the topic, you're throwing out juvenile insults. You lost the argument a while back, you're just to stupid to know it.

 

[Faun]

You remain terminally stupid. Her assault was unjustified. She confronted him and threw her coffee on him. In a court of law, despite any jail time he might face for threatening to destroy property, she could face jail time for assault.

Let the ***** thug press charges against her and see what happens. The judge would ask what led up to it, she would show him/her the online threats and the judge would throw his case out. Would probably also charge the negro with assault and battery. Throwing tea at somebody does not justify being punched in the throat. You and your racist thug buddy Asswipe must be proud of yourselves for defending a man hitting a woman. You guys are a couple of pussies.

LOL

You're ******* deranged.

Your concession is noted, retard.

LOL

As if your last moronic post didn't already announce your surrender.

<smh>

I'm sticking to the topic, you're throwing out juvenile insults. You lost the argument a while back, you're just to stupid to know it.

The topic is NOT dumb ******* comments, so no, you're not sticking to it. Post something demonstrating your synapses are capable of firing a neuron and you'll inspire conversation.

Declaring a judge would ignore her unjustified assault doesn't make it justified -- it only reveals you're ******* deranged. Thinking he would be charged for defending himself following her assaulting him confirms it.

But the most insane part of your post was claiming a judge would probably charge the guy with assault and battery.

Add in you throwing in the race card and your rightardedness is complete.

So you see, when I replied with simply pointing out how you're ******* deranged, that pretty much covered it.

 

[S.J.]

Let the ***** thug press charges against her and see what happens. The judge would ask what led up to it, she would show him/her the online threats and the judge would throw his case out. Would probably also charge the negro with assault and battery. Throwing tea at somebody does not justify being punched in the throat. You and your racist thug buddy Asswipe must be proud of yourselves for defending a man hitting a woman. You guys are a couple of pussies.

LOL

You're ******* deranged.

Your concession is noted, retard.

LOL

As if your last moronic post didn't already announce your surrender.

<smh>

I'm sticking to the topic, you're throwing out juvenile insults. You lost the argument a while back, you're just to stupid to know it.

The topic is NOT dumb ******* comments, so no, you're not sticking to it. Post something demonstrating your synapses are capable of firing a neuron and you'll inspire conversation.

Declaring a judge would ignore her unjustified assault doesn't make it justified -- it only reveals you're ******* deranged. Thinking he would be charged for defending himself following her assaulting him confirms it.

But the most insane part of your post was claiming a judge would probably charge the guy with assault and battery.

Add in you throwing in the race card and your rightardedness is complete.

So you see, when I replied with simply pointing out how you're ******* deranged, that pretty much covered it.

Your constant use of profanity illustrates your low level of intelligence and your defense of the thug in this story illustrates your violent nature and criminal tendencies. You don't belong in civilized society, you belong in the ghetto (which is probably where your posts indicate you live).

 

[Faun]

LOL

You're ******* deranged.

Your concession is noted, retard.

LOL

As if your last moronic post didn't already announce your surrender.

<smh>

I'm sticking to the topic, you're throwing out juvenile insults. You lost the argument a while back, you're just to stupid to know it.

The topic is NOT dumb ******* comments, so no, you're not sticking to it. Post something demonstrating your synapses are capable of firing a neuron and you'll inspire conversation.

Declaring a judge would ignore her unjustified assault doesn't make it justified -- it only reveals you're ******* deranged. Thinking he would be charged for defending himself following her assaulting him confirms it.

But the most insane part of your post was claiming a judge would probably charge the guy with assault and battery.

Add in you throwing in the race card and your rightardedness is complete.

So you see, when I replied with simply pointing out how you're ******* deranged, that pretty much covered it.

Your constant use of profanity illustrates your low level of intelligence and your defense of the thug in this story illustrates your violent nature and criminal tendencies. You don't belong in civilized society, you belong in the ghetto (which is probably where your posts indicate you live).

There really was no need for you to reaffirm that you're ******* deranged. I also get a kick at your hypocrisy over foul language. I guess this means you actually think profanity indicates my intelligence but not yours.

I have said the guy should be expelled. You idiotically think that's me defending him. I said he could potentially face jail time. You moronically think that's me defending him.

But g'head... tell me again how a judge "would probably" charge him with assault and battery. That was ******* hysterical.

 

[S.J.]

I guess this means you actually think profanity indicates my intelligence but not yours.

You've used profanity in almost every post. It does show your lack of intelligence and indicates your inability to control yourself, which is probably why you identify with the thug in thinking there's nothing wrong with hitting a woman.

 

[Faun]

I guess this means you actually think profanity indicates my intelligence but not yours.

You've used profanity in almost every post. It does show your lack of intelligence and indicates your inability to control yourself, which is probably why you identify with the thug in thinking there's nothing wrong with hitting a woman.

You remain ******* deranged (and thin skinned).

You think me posting he should be expelled is defending him.

You think me posting he could face criminal charges is defending him.

Meanwhile, you excuse her unjustified assault.

With every post you prove me right when I point out just how deranged you are.

 

[rcfieldz]

Has anyone posted any other addresses of those involved?

Why? Its not like you are going to do anything right?

No of course not but I wonder if they think about it. Wouldn't be very hard to find either unless they go into hiding out of state. I wouldn't be surprised to see press folk following them around for a comment.

 

[katsteve2012]

First he threatened her, she confronted him, threw a drink at him, and he hit her. The guy's a *****, and so are you for defending a man who hits women. Not surprising though, coming from you.

And they should be expelled for their actions. You know, what you call "defending" them.

No, HE should be expelled.

Nope, she assaulted him. She too should be expelled

No, she's there for an education. He's there to cause trouble. That's obvious.

She threw her drink. Thats causing trouble.

That's assault is what it is. IMO he should not have tweeted that he was going to smash her laptop.
That was poor judgement.

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

What really puzzles me is why anyone would get that upset over someone showing support for some fringe lunatic like Trump.

 

[S.J.]

You think me posting he should be expelled is defending him.

She may have lost her temper when she threw the tea at him but it was provoked and his response to it (punching her) was excessive. Your attempt to hold her equally responsible for the incident is your way of defending him. Referring to her throwing tea at him as "assault" is a real stretch and you show how stupid you are for trying to equate the two.

 

[S.J.]

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

Yeah, I would like to have seen how sympathetic the judge would be when the defendant shows him a printout of the thug saying "Imma smash that *****'s computer", then refusing to delete his public threat.

 

[katsteve2012]

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

Yeah, I would like to have seen how sympathetic the judge would be when the defendant shows him a printout of the thug saying "Imma smash that *****'s computer", then refusing to delete his public threat.

Well, the fact is that you won't, unless one of them or both decide to press charges. He could press charges for assault, and she could press charges for him threatening to destroy her property.

Any fair judge would weigh both offenses and make a decision in accordance with the law in that state and "sympathy" would not be a factor.

Either way, both of them should be expelled from the college.

 

[Asclepias]

And they should be expelled for their actions. You know, what you call "defending" them.

No, HE should be expelled.

Nope, she assaulted him. She too should be expelled

No, she's there for an education. He's there to cause trouble. That's obvious.

She threw her drink. Thats causing trouble.

That's assault is what it is. IMO he should not have tweeted that he was going to smash her laptop.
That was poor judgement.

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

What really puzzles me is why anyone would get that upset over someone showing support for some fringe lunatic like Trump.

Yeah. I dont know why he got upset at all. Its not like her having a sticker is going to get Trump elected. At most I would have simply laughed at her and even that would have been to myself.

 

[Asclepias]

Has anyone posted any other addresses of those involved?

Why? Its not like you are going to do anything right?

No of course not but I wonder if they think about it. Wouldn't be very hard to find either unless they go into hiding out of state. I wouldn't be surprised to see press folk following them around for a comment.

It seems to me neither thought their actions through. What can you say though? I was in my 20's once upon a time and not only did some dumb shit, I did some dangerously dumb shit.

 

[Faun]

You think me posting he should be expelled is defending him.

She may have lost her temper when she threw the tea at him but it was provoked and his response to it (punching her) was excessive. Your attempt to hold her equally responsible for the incident is your way of defending him. Referring to her throwing tea at him as "assault" is a real stretch and you show how stupid you are for trying to equate the two.

The provocation was she was pissed at him for refusing to delete his tweet. That does not justify an assault.

 

[S.J.]

You think me posting he should be expelled is defending him.

She may have lost her temper when she threw the tea at him but it was provoked and his response to it (punching her) was excessive. Your attempt to hold her equally responsible for the incident is your way of defending him. Referring to her throwing tea at him as "assault" is a real stretch and you show how stupid you are for trying to equate the two.

The provocation was she was pissed at him for refusing to delete his tweet. That does not justify an assault.

Bottom line, she stood up to and confronted a bully for threatening her. You, of course, side with the bully and defend him by excusing his physical violence against a woman and calling it "self defense", as if throwing a cup of tea is something to react to with physical force. I could see it if a man had thrown the tea at him but a woman??? What kind of creep would hit a woman (besides you)?

 

[S.J.]

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

Yeah, I would like to have seen how sympathetic the judge would be when the defendant shows him a printout of the thug saying "Imma smash that *****'s computer", then refusing to delete his public threat.

Well, the fact is that you won't, unless one of them or both decide to press charges. He could press charges for assault, and she could press charges for him threatening to destroy her property.

Any fair judge would weigh both offenses and make a decision in accordance with the law in that state and "sympathy" would not be a factor.

Either way, both of them should be expelled from the college.

No, the THUG should be expelled. He's obviously not there to learn. She is, and his threats were enough to warrant having a cup of tea thrown at him. We don't know what words were spoken when she threw the tea at him but we DO know that he had already threatened her. And for what, having a Trump sticker on her laptop? He probably threatened her again just before she threw the tea at him. I would hope that some of the "real men" at that college would beat the MF down for hitting a woman.

 

[katsteve2012]

When she threw the drink on him, he should have just walked away and pressed assault charges.

Yeah, I would like to have seen how sympathetic the judge would be when the defendant shows him a printout of the thug saying "Imma smash that *****'s computer", then refusing to delete his public threat.

Well, the fact is that you won't, unless one of them or both decide to press charges. He could press charges for assault, and she could press charges for him threatening to destroy her property.

Any fair judge would weigh both offenses and make a decision in accordance with the law in that state and "sympathy" would not be a factor.

Either way, both of them should be expelled from the college.

No, the THUG should be expelled. He's obviously not there to learn. She is, and his threats were enough to warrant having a cup of tea thrown at him. We don't know what words were spoken when she threw the tea at him but we DO know that he had already threatened her. And for what, having a Trump sticker on her laptop? He probably threatened her again just before she threw the tea at him. I would hope that some of the "real men" at that college would beat the MF down for hitting a woman.

Lol. Calm down, "Tarzan". You are so tweaked over an obvious case of two wrongs that you're not even making a lucid point here:

Like it or not:

*Depending on the state, YES. The "damsel in distress" who threw the tea on the so called "thug" could have been charged with assault, AND, if it was proven to be with bad intentions, a battery charge could have accompanied it....look it up.

*Secondly, YOU don't know anything about the young man's scholastic record, so who are YOU to say "he's not there to learn"?

*Thirdly, it is obvious that some of the so called "real men" at this institution don't share YOUR neanderthal, thug mentality and stayed out of it, instead of "beating the MF down", as you said.
Otherwise, THEY would be subject to arrest.

This is not Alabama in 1940 anymore.

*Lastly, you ARE right about one thing....all of what transpired in this incident is not really known by the public.

The one who started this thread counted on getting some of the more rabid, less objective, non thinkers here upset with the very title of the thread, and you jumped on it as expected.

As you so eloquently stated......

"He PROBABLY said"_______. "Probably" is typically not a word that someone uses if they are attempting to make a point worth hearing.

But, one thing IS certain. They were BOTH wrong, and for YOU to attempt to rationalize it any other way makes you look silly.

This "dead horse" is "skeletonized".

 

[S.J.]

*Depending on the state, YES. The "damsel in distress" who threw the tea on the so called "thug" could have been charged with assault, AND, if it was proven to be with bad intentions, a battery charge could have accompanied it....look it up.

Given his internet public postings, chances are pretty good that he also provoked her in the hallway (or wherever it happened), but don't let that stop you from defending a man hitting a woman. You obviously see nothing wrong with that.

*Secondly, YOU don't know anything about the young man's scholastic record, so who are YOU to say "he's not there to learn"?

His public comments reflecting his thug mentality and use of ebonics show he's not there to learn. If he WAS, he wouldn't be concerned about what stickers she may have on her laptop and he wouldn't be threatening to smash her property. Pretty sure the asshole isn't there to learn anything.

*Thirdly, it is obvious that some of the so called "real men" at this institution don't share YOUR Neanderthal, thug mentality and stayed out of it, instead of "beating the MF down".
Otherwise, THEY would be subject to arrest.

You would probably stand there and watch while a man beat a woman but a real man wouldn't, and obviously there were no real men there at the time. And they would NOT be arrested for kicking a thug's ass after punching a woman.

But one thing IS certain. They were BOTH wrong, and for YOU to attempt to rationalize it any other way makes you look silly.

No, they were not BOTH wrong. You're the one rationalizing because you want to excuse the negro for hitting a woman. That may be acceptable in your community but it's not acceptable in civilized society.