Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round

[Ravi]

A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner, 24, is recovering after being blinded Tuesday and possibly losing some sight in her right eye as well, dad Donnell Conner told NBC News.

surgeons had to pull about 20 pellets from her face.

Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round - NBC News

Just send her the checks in the mail...

The negress lacked common sense. She was incapable of using it to stay out of harms way that night due to the limited intellect genetically bred into the type race she is.

What I really want to know is why republicans never call out their supporters' racism.

 

[Papageorgio]

She was just driving around in the middle of a riot watching the gas station burn. Not doing anything but respecting Mike Brown when she thought she could run over a cop. Out of respect for Mike Brown.

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

 

[Yarddog]

Her fault for being a ***** according to cons.

hmmm I dont see anyone calling her a *****, but her stupid boyfriend had no sense having her even in the local vicinity let alone driving
around cop cars when everybody is on edge. What the hell people??! I would never take my pregnant girlfriend to a protest you pretty sure
anticipate to turn violent. Again, people not wanting to own up to their decisions. Its not really the girls fault, I blame her dumb ass botfriend for
not being protective, thats his job.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's really sad this happened. Perhaps a police officer should pay for this if he was in the wrong. On the other hand, this may need to be filed in the "shit happens" categorie. Some times bad things happen even when police follow proper procedure.

 

[reconmark]

She was just driving around in the middle of a riot watching the gas station burn. Not doing anything but respecting Mike Brown when she thought she could run over a cop. Out of respect for Mike Brown.

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

 

[reconmark]

A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner, 24, is recovering after being blinded Tuesday and possibly losing some sight in her right eye as well, dad Donnell Conner told NBC News.

surgeons had to pull about 20 pellets from her face.

Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round - NBC News

Just send her the checks in the mail...

The negress lacked common sense. She was incapable of using it to stay out of harms way that night due to the limited intellect genetically bred into the type race she is.

When one has failed as a man and as a person, they can always use race as a false crutch to imagined superiority.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner, 24, is recovering after being blinded Tuesday and possibly losing some sight in her right eye as well, dad Donnell Conner told NBC News.

surgeons had to pull about 20 pellets from her face.

Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round - NBC News

Just send her the checks in the mail...

The negress lacked common sense. She was incapable of using it to stay out of harms way that night due to the limited intellect genetically bred into the type race she is.

When one has failed as a man and as a person, they can always use race as a false crutch to imagined superiority.

You're definitely wrong there boy.

 

[Papageorgio]

She was just driving around in the middle of a riot watching the gas station burn. Not doing anything but respecting Mike Brown when she thought she could run over a cop. Out of respect for Mike Brown.

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

The left automatically believes anything a black person says against a cop. It is part and parcel of their political beliefs.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Some witnesses claim she had her "Hands Up".......

 

[reconmark]

A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner, 24, is recovering after being blinded Tuesday and possibly losing some sight in her right eye as well, dad Donnell Conner told NBC News.

surgeons had to pull about 20 pellets from her face.

Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round - NBC News

Just send her the checks in the mail...

The negress lacked common sense. She was incapable of using it to stay out of harms way that night due to the limited intellect genetically bred into the type race she is.

When one has failed as a man and as a person, they can always use race as a false crutch to imagined superiority.

You're definitely wrong there boy.

Actually your need to stoop to outdated colloquialisms prove my point...

 

[reconmark]

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

The left automatically believes anything a black person says against a cop. It is part and parcel of their political beliefs.

Some white people will deny anything a Black person says to the point of making themselves look foolish...

 

[reconmark]

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

Your sheer mastery of ignorance is breath taking.
Let me help your primitive, moronic brain discern what she said and did, first person:


A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner wrote on Facebook that she and her boyfriend weren't protesting that morning or trying to cause a disturbance.

Conner said that her boyfriend was trying to maneuver around police,

So your sheer inability to comprehend third grade English, allows me to pity you instead of having disdain for your ignorance.

In the future don't post a lie in order to attempt to boost your attempt at a logical rebuttal to a fact.
I never posted that the officer was required to render an IMMEDIATE rebuttal. I will not ask you to retract that lie, that would require some medium of intellectual honesty on your part

In your impotent failings at logic you have by chance drawn one factual conclusion.

It would indeed be really, really stupid to take one side without hearing all the evidence, so I'm not surprised that you have attempted to absolve the officer of any wrong doing, in the blinding of a young woman.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

The left automatically believes anything a black person says against a cop. It is part and parcel of their political beliefs.

Some white people will deny anything a Black person says to the point of making themselves look foolish...

Except in both cases of shootings of black "youths" the supposed criminals in the piece were found not guilty. And it is you and your ilk that claim otherwise. Remind me of your sympathy for black victims of other blacks? 4 to 5 thousand blacks a year are murdered by other blacks. Remind me how it is suddenly an epidemic of white cops murdering blacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

Your sheer mastery of ignorance is breath taking.
Let me help your primitive, moronic brain discern what she said and did, first person:


A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner wrote on Facebook that she and her boyfriend weren't protesting that morning or trying to cause a disturbance.

Conner said that her boyfriend was trying to maneuver around police,

So your sheer inability to comprehend third grade English, allows me to pity you instead of having disdain for your ignorance.

In the future don't post a lie in order to attempt to boost your attempt at a logical rebuttal to a fact.
I never posted that the officer was required to render an IMMEDIATE rebuttal. I will not ask you to retract that lie, that would require some medium of intellectual honesty on your part

In your impotent failings at logic you have by chance drawn one factual conclusion.

It would indeed be really, really stupid to take one side without hearing all the evidence, so I'm not surprised that you have attempted to absolve the officer of any wrong doing, in the blinding of a young woman.

Your own statement proves you are the one that misunderstands you clearly stated that her family MADE THE CLAIM.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you go with what the first person said and don't wait for all the evidence. So here-say evidence is good enough for you.

The police thought the driver was charging them, what about that verison, or is that the side you don't want to believe.

Obviously you don't know what heresay evidence is or when it's a matter of contention.
The woman was not in a court of law or giving testimony. Stop playing with procedures you know nothing of.
If a police Officer believes a car is attempting to run them over, they are not going to fire a bean bag at the moving car. Use common sense.

It is still hearsay, it is not from the source. In a court of law or dealing with people, I give little weight to what someone said someone else said.

If that is all he had at the moment, and ready to fire...he is going to use whatever he has. Use common sense.

And in spite of all your BS, you are still looking at only one side and therefore it may not be accurate at all, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

So, you admit your ignorance of heresay, yet base your opinion on that ignorance...smh.
The woman never stated what someone else said or what was told to her second hand.
She has given her first person account.
The woman was wearing a seat belt and in the passenger seat, she was not in control of the vehicle.
Further, no police officer only has bean bags as his only weapon, stop pulling things out your behind.

So with no rebuttal from the Officer, you have formed a conclusion on why a bean bag was used.
Why the passenger was shot with the bean bag.

What were you saying about ignorance???...

No the quotes were coming from her father, not her. So your ignorance is again out front.

I have drawn no conclusions because not enough evidence has been given.
A police officer not responding giving an immediate rebuttal? I would think his superiors ask the officers not to talk to the media or they could lose their jobs.

My job does not allow me to talk to the media about my company or work.

Taking one side without hearing all the evidence would be really, really stupid.

Your sheer mastery of ignorance is breath taking.
Let me help your primitive, moronic brain discern what she said and did, first person:


A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner wrote on Facebook that she and her boyfriend weren't protesting that morning or trying to cause a disturbance.

Conner said that her boyfriend was trying to maneuver around police,

So your sheer inability to comprehend third grade English, allows me to pity you instead of having disdain for your ignorance.

In the future don't post a lie in order to attempt to boost your attempt at a logical rebuttal to a fact.
I never posted that the officer was required to render an IMMEDIATE rebuttal. I will not ask you to retract that lie, that would require some medium of intellectual honesty on your part

In your impotent failings at logic you have by chance drawn one factual conclusion.

It would indeed be really, really stupid to take one side without hearing all the evidence, so I'm not surprised that you have attempted to absolve the officer of any wrong doing, in the blinding of a young woman.

I never absolved anyone of anything, please post where I did.

I am not making a decision either way, to many questions.

Why do you get pissed because I won't make up my mind until I see all the evidence?

 

[Ellipsis]

A pregnant woman who says she wasn't even protesting lost her left eye after police on Tuesday in St. Louis shot her in the face with a bean bag round, her family said Friday.

Dornella Conner, 24, is recovering after being blinded Tuesday and possibly losing some sight in her right eye as well, dad Donnell Conner told NBC News.

surgeons had to pull about 20 pellets from her face.

Pregnant Woman Loses Eye After St. Louis Cops Shoot Bean-Bag Round - NBC News

Just send her the checks in the mail...

"Conner said that her boyfriend was trying to maneuver around police, while police say he was driving at them. St. Louis County police told NBC News on Friday that Lee was arrested and charged with second-degree assault on law enforcement."

And now you know...the rest of the story.

 

[Godboy]

She was just driving around in the middle of a riot watching the gas station burn. Not doing anything but respecting Mike Brown when she thought she could run over a cop. Out of respect for Mike Brown.

It's obvious reading comprehension escapes you.
She was a passenger.

He said his daughter and her boyfriend had driven to a gas station in St. Louis early Tuesday to fill up. The area remained on edge hours after a grand jury decided Monday night not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

Don't worry, yours won't be the only stupid and uninformed comment made, after all this is usmb.

They just needed to top off the gas tank... in the middle of a full blown riot. That sounds believable.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The boyfriend (driver) was arrested, but she says he was just trying to get around the cars.

Question: if you're driving up to police cars, wouldn't you wait for a "go ahead" before you try to maneuver around them? Or were the police so jumpy, they just thought they were going to get rammed and shot at the oncoming car? And how fast was this car going, I wonder?

There are lots of things that need explaining.

Topping the list: why did the cop use a beanbag round instead of a slug or a load of buckshot from a shotgun?

 

[Theowl32]

Ban bean bag guns? Fire all white cops? Blame the white prosecutor for not pressing charges against the innocent white cop?

Blacks do not have rights in this country?

I find it funny and pathetic at the same time how blacks in this country have it better here than any place on the planet.

Black privilege manifests itself in numerous forms:

• Blacks have the right to take pride in their race. Whites don't.

• Blacks can never be racist. Whites are always racist, even if they don't try to be.

• Blacks get to play the race card. Whites don't.

• Blacks never have to feel guilty about being black. Whites are trained to feel guilty about being white.

• Blacks have the right to make blacks only organizations like the Black Student Union and the Congressional Black Caucus. Whites don't.

• Blacks have the right to never take responsibility for their own actions. Anything bad which happens to a black person can be blamed on racism or white people. Whites have to take responsibility and apologize for their actions.

• Rich black people have a right to be rich. Rich white people don't.

• Black people have the right to demonize white people. White people don't have the right to demonize black people.

• Black people are excused when they are prejudiced against white people. White people are never excused for prejudice against black people.

• Black people are a "protected class." White people are not.

• Violent crimes by whites on blacks are "hate crimes." Violent crimes by blacks on whites are just "random" crimes.

• Blacks have the right to affirmative action and minority set-asides. Whites have to earn their positions.

• Blacks are "cool." Whites are "squares" and "rednecks."

• Blacks have the right to say words like "******," which whites are never allowed to use. They have the right to incessantly repeat the word "******" in front of white people, to intimidate them and keep them in their place.

• Blacks can make the most racially insensitive comments and, more often than not, no one blinks twice. They are allowed to insult others without repercussion.[1]

• Blacks can spend their rent money on designer handbags and then complain about how they don’t have the same economic opportunities as everyone else. And they get away with it.[2]

• Black men are sexual supermen. White men are sexually inadequate. Black men have huge penises. White men have small, inadequate penises.

• Blacks have "civil rights". Whites don't.

• Blacks are in prison because of racism. Whites are in prison because they're criminals.

• Black jury members have the right to acquit criminals, if they're black.

• Blacks have the right to put a halt to any policy, statement, symbol, statistic, outcome, word or expression they find offensive. Whites have no such rights.

• Blacks are morally superior to whites.

• "[Blacks] enjoy cultural cache around the world as victors over oppression and the hard reality of what that looks like at this point in world history. The music that they enjoy, the clothes that they wear, their very mannerisms carry a certain amount of gravitas."[3]

• Blacks can assign collective racial guilt to "you white folks." White people cannot do the reverse because that would be racist.

• White people everywhere, and at all times, bear guilt for the crimes of a minority of white people in the past (e.g., slave owners, Adolf Hitler). Making blacks bear guilt, as a race, for the despicable crimes of their criminal minority is stereotyping, racist, and an insult to reason; after all, no one should ever be blamed for the acts of some unrelated person.

• Blacks have "black culture." Whites are not allowed to have white culture.

• African-American studies is a celebration of blackness and black culture. Whiteness studies is a demonization of white people and white culture.

• White people need to undergo diversity/sensitivity training. Black people don't.

• "... any generalization--favorable or unfavorable--about any minority that someone does not like is by definition "racist" and deserves to be suppressed--as long as it is said by a white person. Black diversity consultants, in contrast, can parade, without a shred of empirical evidence, the grossest racial and ethnic stereotypes with virtual impunity."[4]

• It's racist to point out racism by blacks. It's never racist to point out racism by whites.

• Whites have to walk on eggshells around blacks. Blacks don't give a shit what whites think.

• Blacks have the right to riot and commit violent acts in response to perceived grievances. White people have to obey the law at all times.

• Blacks have the right to never be portrayed as criminals or low-lifes in films or on TV. Bad guys on the screen must always be white.

• Blacks have the right to never be ridiculed, mocked, belittled or laughed at. Whites have no such right.

• Black criminals have the right to have their race censored in media reports.

• Facts which cause blacks embarrassment or cast them in a bad light must be suppressed. Facts which cause whites embarrassment or cast them in a bad light are reported as is.

• Blacks can silence and intimidate whites by calling them racist. Whites can't silence and intimidate blacks because that would be racist.

• Forcing ****** to apologize shows black power and clout. Whites can never force blacks to apologize because that would constitute a lynching.

• Whites are held to a system of 'sensitivity' requirements that do not apply to blacks.

• "Whites are monitored, pestered, and punished for preposterous reasons--for a look, for an innocent word, for wearing a T-shirt, for expressing a plausible argument--but blacks can say almost anything with perfect impunity."[5]

• "In discussions of race between black people and white people the conscious black person is always right; is always the ultimate authority on questions having to do with race and racism; must always be regarded as the ‘injured party,’ or the oppressed. . . . [Whites] cannot possibly be expected to be objective about questions of race."[6]

• Blacks may work for explicitly racial goals but whites may not.

• Blacks are permitted to notice race. Whites are not.

• "It is quite acceptable for either party to explicitly go after the black, Hispanic, or even the Jewish vote. In fact both parties gain an indispensable moral authority by doing so. But it is absolutely verboten for either party, or any white candidate, to appeal to whites as a racial identity group. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say 'I'm white and I'm proud' and you are a National Socialist."[7]

• A black person who punches a white person is a hero standing up to oppression. A white person who punches a black person is a racist.

• It can be publicly admitted that blacks are superior to whites in certain pursuits (i.e. basketball). It can never be publicly admitted that whites are superior to blacks in other pursuits (i.e. winning Nobel prizes in science).

• When blacks are overrepresented in a desirable field, it is due to their abilities. When whites are overrepresented in a desirable field, it is due to racism. When blacks are overrepresented in an undesirable field, it is due to racism. When whites are overrepresented in an undesirable field, it is their own fault.

• Most African countries are made up almost entirely of black people, and have some of the world's highest birth rates. Most European countries consist of white people having to live alongside black people and other non-whites, and have some of the world's lowest birth rates.

Black privilege - Metapedia

Not to mention the richest woman in this country is black. we have countless black millionaires, doctors, lawyers, supreme court judge, mayors, and THE ******* PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Yet, they cry racism at every turn. Since this fraud has been elected president, they have CRIED LOUDER about racism. All behind the moronic white liberals, who continuously display their complete inability to think for themselves and their pure willingness to be nothing but pawns for their democrat socialist masters.

Just to reiterate, they have their own colleges, their own network (Called BET, could you imagine a network called WET?), they receive welfare, their own dating site on the internet, etc etc etc.

So many of them are poor and fat as hell. How the ******* does that happen? I have no idea.

Here is an actual African.

Here is an American BLACK man who has it so ******* bad.

Hey liberal morons. None of your bullshit propaganda works on me. I do not feel sorry for any of THOSE PEOPLE who choose a life of crime cause they CHOOSE to listen to your race dividing rhetoric.

**** you liberals.