Well, you want to ignore the fact that there was the dope deal on first encounter, so it was never a "Strong arm robbery".
1.) There was no dope deal at the first encounter. Brown
attempted a dope-for-cigars deal but the deal was not completed.
2.) There was no robbery at the first encounter but the second encounter was, in fact, a robbery or theft. And a strong arm robbery given that Brown assaulted the owner when the owner tried to prevent Brown leaving with his merchandise.
Or just an assumption seeing how racist these South Asian store owners are.
How many South Asian store owners do you know?
They are more racist than most white people, and that's an accomplishment.
Who says they are, people who try to steal from them?
I was talking about Wilson, but you knew that.
Yes, I knew that. But the store owner didn't have a badge and gun but Brown assaulted him anyway. That was my point.
It was a question, not an assertion. Do you not understand the difference?
Your morality speaks for itself, but I can see why you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself further by blurting out, "The little bastards had it comin'!"
Irrelevant. It was deflection.
I asked four questions in my last post which you failed to answer.
1.) How am I gaslighting?
2.) What did I lie about?
3.) How did the clerks rip off the store owner when they kept the cigars and Brown kept his dope?
4.) Who called the cops if the store owner didn't?
Also, you said the police doctored the video of the encounter between Brown and Wilson and I asked if you had a link. Do you?
And finally, why do you hate this store owner so much? Did you buy into some bullshit racist anti-Asian rhetoric in the Strange Fruit video? You did, didn't you?
