We've identified a pattern of behavior that has been detrimental, maybe criminal. We've identified a lack of responsibility and a willingness to seemingly be influenced by individuals with goals that are not necessary compliant with what is best.
And now, it seems there is irrefutable evidence that supports what we have long known.
Attorney Worrick Robinson said deputy David Hadley had "made claims in the past that he was going to pull over Adam Jones the first time he got occasion to, that's exactly what he had been bragging about around other people in Williamson County."
That's right. Our long held belief that the police have been acting spitefully and willful attempting to hem Mr. Jones up is seemingly correct.
Hadley saw Jones get into the driver's seat of his orange Lamborghini at a Franklin Mapco on Highway 96 on June 10 and pulled him over at 8:31 p.m. because of prior knowledge that Jones didn't have a driver's license, Sheriff Ricky Headley said.
Jones did have a valid driver's license from Georgia, but was cited for a 30-day residency violation.
This leaves the improbably correct impression that this particular officer was staking Jones out. Laying in wait to spring into action as soon as he thought there was potential to further sully the good name Pacman Jones.
"It was not because he was speeding. It was not because he was swerving or that he failed to obey any traffic signal or any other traffic laws," Robinson said of the traffic stop. "He pulled him over. He had heard that Mr. Jones did not have a valid driver's license."
Pulled over for DWBP. Driving while being Pacman.
That citation included the notation that the deputy made the stop because another deputy told him the cornerback had no driver's license.
Jones has already been the victim of punishment without due process. Now, he is pulled over without any acceptable probable cause.
The other disturbing issue here is that the local media received a fax of the citation from the police department almost immediately.
"I just have a problem with an officer, whoever it is, faxing that to a media outlet," Robinson said.
Clearly, this is a blatant attempt to get this news out and circulating to do damage to Pacman.
So, again. All the calls for personal responsibility. Acting in a manner which is inconsistent with cooperating with the tenants of justice. Keeping silent to protect one's own "inner circle". Willfully flaunting the law.
All these contentions. All of them are now clearly exposed by Mr. Jones' lawyer. While they may be unsupportable and thoroughly unprovable, that matters not.
It's time the media pick up this story and report what Mr. Jones' lawyer is attempting to suggest.
Pacman is the victim.
The argument is now complete.
63 comments:
"pattern of behavior that has been detrimental, maybe criminal. We've identified a lack of responsibility and a willingness to seemingly be influenced by individuals with goals that are not necessary compliant with what is best."
umm, yea. well, the other 99.9% of people would have said this about PACMAN, not the police.
Sirs, my personal opinion is that 'zeke' is funnier than 'dave the wave', but stupider. But it's really too close to call on both counts.
I was busted for Driving While Being Q-Bert once.
But I thought Pacman was busted for driving with the wrong license plate on his car. Not that I'm passing judgment or basing my opinions on pure speculation, sir.
Sir, that was legitimately bullshit.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=sports&id=5474433
At least they didn't 'find' a dime of coca in the center console.
"Gonna set me up?"
"Headley said Jones was not cited for tag swapping — having the wrong license plate on the wrong car — as had been reported."
Sir, from the article.
Sir, they're gonna have to start passing out Stop Snitchin' T-shirts at the Sheriff's department soon.
"Sir, that was legitimately bullshit."
you're talking about nois's post, correct?
uncommon Sir, I was referring to the charge of plate-switching against Pacman.
If you read the article the Sheriff admits that he wasn't charged with plate-swapping, as referenced by NOISb thereafter. The charge was bullshit.
as for the post, I suspect it's on the sincere end of NOISb's spectrum, but I don't pretend to speak for the poster.
"Victim" may not be the correct word here. It's possible "unwilling accomplice" is more appropriate. Pacman is dumber than any 2 idiots on this msg board. I just wish "he would fade into Bolivia".
when all else fails play the "cops hate black people" card. The fact is this guy was guilty of another violation. It is a shame how this guy flushed everything away. Why dont you start writing posts about current NFL players not guys who played one year and are done.
Thank you for this, sir.
Count me in zeke's .01% of people who think Goodell is a douche.
By the way, the Nashville cops targeted Steve McNair back in '03 the same way...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McNair#Personal
"The fact is this guy was guilty of another violation"
Sir, although you have made abundantly clear in the past that you do not feel that the normal right of due process or any other protection of law should be extended to Negro athletes, or Negroes in general...do you not understand the problem here?
The problem is PROBABLE cause. (I heard pacman ain't got a valid license....THAT ain't probable cause)
That is a fail safe built into our legal system to prevent authorities from having too much power. It provides a clear and distinct process that must be adhered to in order to make traffic stops, searches...etc.
By advocating this stoppage of Mr. Jones, you are advocating taking away rights.
You are saying that the individual deserves no protection of his civil liberties.
That the individual should be subjected to arbitrary searches and arbitrary enforcement of the law.
You are saying you are against freedom.
You are saying you hate America.
Why not go join Al Qada?
They hate freedom too.
You are a terrorist.
On top of being a racist.
psst.
You do not need "probable cause" to pull someone over... only "reasonable suspicion."
"Reasonable suspicion" is what is needed to actually bring the complaint warrant against someone.
The stop was valid.
Sirs, thank you for giving me the correct information. I am still learning.
"You are a terrorist."
Sir, THAT is no joke.
Yeah, Pac- was guilty of a violation: a 30-day residency violation. Can you see that from inside a police cruiser?
The sheriff all but admitted to the press that his deputy fabricated the license plate story to justify the pull.
Folks, what this deputy did was against the law, plain and simple. I'm not talking about some podunk 'Negroes look drunk to me' Arizona law or some bohunk 'Negro can't get brains from another teenager' Georgia law. It's a straight up Constitutional violation.
Now, who is jumping out of their skin to call this donut-munching badge-for-hood coward a criminal? Aside from me, of course.
"You do not need "probable cause" to pull someone over... only "reasonable suspicion."
"Reasonable suspicion" is what is needed to actually bring the complaint warrant against someone.
The stop was valid. "
Sir, reasonable suspicion of what?
Of being rumored not to have a valid license?
Wouldn't a prudent officer, without an agenda radio dispatch to check the status of the individuals license? Particularly when he KNEW who the invididual was and this wasn't a random stop?
I realize you are a lawyer. However, we will go with the point of view provided by Mr. Jones' counsel on this one, as he is intimately familiar with the details...and you apparently rely on sketchy blogs information in forming your legal opinion.
Thanks, tho.
john is right about the standard for traffic stops: it is not a probable cause standard
but the reasonable suspicion can't be based on a personal vendetta 'under color of the law'. the abuse of power is a constitutional violation.
most jurisdictions are going to require some observation on the part of the officer to justify a pull and a rumor won't cut it. that's why the dep. made up bullshit about the plates.
let's not try the case here. it looks bad for your side when the sheriff is already backpedaling before the action has been filed
burnsy, Sir, you seem like a quick learner.
recognize that there's at least three levels of bullshit in play before we ever hear any of this stuff. only the people involved know the 'facts' as we call them, and they tend to forget as selectively as a woman on Sunday morning.
"most jurisdictions are going to require some observation on the part of the officer to justify a pull and a rumor won't cut it. that's why the dep. made up bullshit about the plates."
i can vouch for this.
i got off a dui. somebody called the police and said they had seen me drinking and i was driving. the cop pulled me over, and on the report never made mention that i was swerving or speeding or any other reason for pulling me or that HE had seen me drinking. in court the judge said that i was pulled over for insufficient reasons and that the breathylzer reading could not be used against me. and since there was no documented traffic violation or anything, they dropped the case.
i'm not proud of this. i'm just saying.
Mr. Reed, the interpretation of the reasonable suspicion standard varies from state to state. Here in white fantasyland/PA they do treasure their privacy. Reasonable Suspicion here is substantially the same as PC (probable cause, y'all)
they may be a bit more generous to the police down south, probably because of, you know. So it's possible, despite the fact that even Scalia wouldn't back them, that the state of Tennessee allows traffic stops based upon rumor.
but on the real, they don't.
john s., Sir, you seem like a 'nice' person.
as a professional you understand
when I smell a defense attorney I go for the jug'
it's a survival instinct
not a personal attack
now, I gotta go do my job where I can be paid for it.
peace
"now, I gotta go do my job where I can be paid for it."
damn, boy. is it already time to wax the floors???
That citation included the notation that the deputy made the stop because another deputy told him the cornerback had no driver's license.
Information from another police officer that Mr. Jones did not have a valid license would satisfy the "probable cause" standard. The officer who did the stop would not have to go back and "re-check" the information in order to effect the stop.
Mind you, I am not a criminal attorney, but, when I worked for the City of Newark I defended all of the section 1983 (civil rights)cases and ran into this sort of thing all of the time.
I am not saying the police are telling the truth or that what they did was "right", but, the stop should withstand constitutional muster.
"Information from another police officer that Mr. Jones did not have a valid license would satisfy the "probable cause" standard. "
did you read the other articles? it's all heresay. the other cop "heard" it also...so, basically this is just the passing of rumors.
does one cop hearing a rumor and then telling another cop stand up to the muster?
didn't think so.
The rules of evidence (i.e. hearsay) and what is admissible in a court of law is WHOLLY different from what a police officer can rely upon to make a traffic stop.
"The rules of evidence (i.e. hearsay) and what is admissible in a court of law is WHOLLY different from what a police officer can rely upon to make a traffic stop. "
you seem pretty doggone intent on trying to spin this as being an acceptable action. and blowing off the stuff the deputy said about wanting to nail Pacman.
hmmm....
sigh
Forget I said anything.
"Forget I said anything. "
damn, homey, you cave easy.
It has nothing to do with "caving" and everything to do with not having the time, patience or inclination to explain what "hearsay" is and how it has nothing to do with what is going on here
Guess nobody heard me the first time...
NAHVILLE COPS DID THE EXACT SAME THING TO STEVE MCNAIR IN 2003!!!
McNair was cleared because the Judge ruled that the cop did not have any reason to pull him over.
We must not ignore the racist patterns set forth by the Nashville/Williamson County police.
^^^^^^^^^
Sir, wasn't another DUI just recently dropped against McNair...in Tennessee?
Pattern?
"It has nothing to do with "caving"..."
no, then why all the excuses?
first you cave. then you make excuses.
yep. you definately are a lawyer.
Pacman the victim? You insult NOI. You make good or bad choices. We all must live by OUR choices. Because of his choices, he is recognized by police. If they KNEW the car, why not see if Pacman would get in it since they KNEW if he did, it would be a crime. HHMMM, We set up sexual predators, are you against that too. Pacman makes poor decisions and has ruined a wonderful career that would have given him the ability to do what he wants to help his crew and NOI. Instant gratification should be the eight deadly sin.
"If they KNEW the car, why not see if Pacman would get in it since they KNEW if he did, it would be a crime."
Sir, let's make this simple for our dull sword.
The belief was that Pacman was driving without a license. That is the rumor the police officer was acting on. It would have been a more acceptable act to simply CHECK with the DMV if Pacman had a license, rather than pull him and have it turn out that he has a GOOD license. And then grasp at straws and claim he had switched tags. Which even the police department later admitted was false.
As for the rest of your statement. We don't know what your point was.
Two things are clear. You don't know the details of what went on, yet feel the need to sound off with your uninformed and therefore worthless input. And, you are against the restraints the law provides to prevent police from having unchecked power.
Someday, we hope you are pulled over for DWBP. Bet you change your off key tune.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
We got a pen.
I knew your boy john s was a municipal defense att'y the sec he says: 'the stop was valid.' Any knee-jerk reaction like that from an attorney means that's what he was paid to say. [kind of like calling a cop a criminal, I admit.]
I don't know the facts any more than he does. maybe the dip-uty actually received a(n erroneous) tip from a credible source regarding Pacman's license. Again, kinda depends upon your jurisdiction whether that justifies a traffic stop. I can't tell Tennessee from a hole in the ground, and I've been there.
I did read several articles that quote the sheriff throwing his deputy under the bus.
john, Sir, If the sheriff isn't defending the validity of the stop, why are you?
zeke, Sir, I will wax the floor with your ass anytime you are ready.
NOISb, Sir, it's been real but john s. reminded me why I got into law school in the first place: so I can actually beat these crackers at their own game. It's a waste of my time to come on here and bait them for fun when I should be taking their money. Excellent writing in this blog, both satirical and political. Enjoy.
Pacman is one of the biggest coons to come through professional sports in a while, and it pains me that we are compelled to either defend or answer for his shucking and jiving.
@Johnny...
Keep telling yourself you are in law school to score one for the "little guy." However, please, when those loan payments come due, look me up and tell me how you feel.
Regarding this thread, my analysis was based SOLELY on what I read in the article. Nothing more. Last time I checked, a tip from a reputable source is not only sufficient for a traffic stop, but, can be sufficient for a search warrant. It is that simple. There may be facts that I am unaware of in this case, there may not be. But, as I read it, on its face, even in spite of the officer's seeming "predisposition" towards pulling him over, the stop was will probably withstand review.
Regarding the subsequent statements by the arresting officer's superior, he may be throwing his officer under the bus for PR reasons. It would not be the first time I have seen that happen for sure. Query, is his boss elected to his position? If so, do the math.
Sadly, life is rarely as dramatic as you are making it sound. Step back and look at the facts rationally. If there is one thing you should be learning in law school, it is that.
Great Work, NOI!! Finally, the victimization of Pacman Jones has been justly and irrefutably revealed. Your impeccable journalism sets a standard for all black athletes that deserve to be seen in a different light, as to escape the unfair persecution of racist law enforcement. One favor to ask, though, if i may: After your eloquent vindication of Pacman, I would hope that you could go after another black athlete that has been unfairly treated by the white supremacist law enforcement: Rae Carruth.
Carruth was a man who clearly was singled out and pulled over for no probable cause other than DWBITT (Driving While Being In The Trunk). Never mind the fact that he may have previously committed the slight wrongdoing of arranging the murder of his pregnant wife, this arrest is just one more clear example of the abhorrent racism against black athletes. The fact that he has to remain in jail for roughly 20 years when he was clearly singled out is absurd, and I would appreciate it if you would touch on this issue.
Thanks, NOI, you're the best!
"this arrest is just one more clear example of the abhorrent racism against black athletes. "
Sir, are you being sarcastic?
The Rae Carruth story is a tragedy of monumental proportions.
'Sir', you are very correct in your assumption of my (thinly-veiled) sarcasm. Similarly, you are equally correct in your analysis of the Rae Carruth situation, which truly is a "tragedy of monumental proportions".
Another relevant and related tragedy I would like to point out, however, is the Tommy Urbanski story, or do your bigoted sympathies not extend universally, but only when they support your hate-fueled agenda?
"Another relevant and related tragedy I would like to point out, however, is the Tommy Urbanski story, or do your bigoted sympathies not extend universally, but only when they support your hate-fueled agenda?"
Sir, you juxtapose two dissimilar events.
Carruth received his due process. Was tried and found guilty.
Jones hasn't even been charged with anything.
We certainly feel sorry for Urbanski.
But we refuse to abdicate an individual's right to due process and fair treatment under the law.
Apparently, you don't care about those things.
Sir, believe me, I do care about the right to due process and fair treatment, and no where in my post would it suggest that I didn't. I, however, prefer to analyze situations on facts and not skin color. For example, it is a fact that minutes before Tommy Urbanski was shot and handicapped from the waist down, Pacman Jones grabbed a stripper by the hair and slammed her head against the ground for attempting to pick up money he had thrown at her. Then, as the situation escalated, he threatened to kill one of the security guards. Minutes later Urbanski was shot by an unnamed shooter. Now I would definitely not conclude from that information that Pacman Jones shot Urbanski, however, it is clear that without Pacman's actions, the situation would not have escalated the way they did.
Also, I find your strong and unwavering defense of Pacman and his right to due process interesting, if not grossly inconsistent. Whereas just over a year ago the Duke Lacrosse team had a similar situation in which they punished athletically before they were found guilty. (And I know, you didn't publicly support Duke in this move). But instead of preaching their right to fair treatment and due process as they were getting slandered as 'hooligans' and having future careers ruined, or declaring how they were being victimized by the law and media (which they were more than Pacman could ever dream of), you decided to instead take in and protect the lying Crystal Mangum from the "evil racism" she encountered.
It is one thing to preach due process and fair treatment, it is another to preach due process and fair treatment for EVERYONE. Obviously, you don't care about the latter.
"Whereas just over a year ago the Duke Lacrosse team had a similar situation in which they punished athletically before they were found guilty. (And I know, you didn't publicly support Duke in this move). But instead of preaching their right to fair treatment and due process as they were getting slandered as 'hooligans' and having future careers ruined, or declaring how they were being victimized by the law and media (which they were more than Pacman could ever dream of), you decided to instead take in and protect the lying Crystal Mangum from the "evil racism" she encountered"
Sir, we were going to take the time to address your comment. But we realized a few things.
i. You say that "over a year ago". This blog has only been around since THIS january.
ii. You say we supported Crystal Mangum. Do a search of this blog, we have NEVER mentioned her name.
iii. The only post we have ever done on the Duke Lacrosse team was one in which we said they shouldn't get an extra year of eligibility.
Essentially, you just LIED.
You put all that out there about us being hypocrits and supporting the accusor in the Duke rape case...and we have never even delved into any aspect of the case on here except to say the players are better off not playing for Duke.
You, my friend, are a LIAR.
Not just a liar, but now a proven liar.
And, you expect us to accept the "facts" you give us about the night club incident...when firstly, you are a LIAR...and secondly you weren't there?
Take your lies elsewhere, devil.
To the LIAR:
In fact, if you read our post on the Duke Lacrosse team you will see this:
"Instead of standing by their young men and demanding due process and at least some tangible results from the investigation, Duke chose to indict their own young men. Showing no confidence in the accused players' innocence, the team was treated as pariahs and told they were unworthy to wear Duke uniforms."
Again, not only did you get caught in a horrible lie attempting to sully our pristine reputation...but your contention that we are hypocrits is proven wrong as well.
We clearly demanded due process for Pacman AND the Duke kids.
Beat it, liar.
well, the liar is right about one thing....NOIS rules.
Why to stomp that ass, nois!
Forgive me, sir, for making the assumption that the nation of islam sportsblog was in association with the Nation of Islam. Because, as you can read in this article, http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-scandal-buzz.html
, the Nation of Islam spokesperson clearly did everything that I claimed in my "lies". Or are Min. Louis Farrakhan's comments, "We should have rushed to her defense instantly. We’ve got to take the next step... we need to surround her like an ocean," a little vague in their allegiances?
I do understand that you stood up for the players in your one article about them, which was very much overdue for a blog so concerned with due process and fair treatment, considering the treatment they received from the law enforcement and the media. Although I think the clear motive in that post was more cashing in on an attempt to bash duke than supporting fair treatment.
Now, if this blog is completely disassociated with the Nation of Islam then i do apologize, for my statements were not lies, as you claimed them, but an understanding of the situation based on the assumption of that association.
However, if my assumption was correct and there is an association between the two, then you sir are wrong.
And now you are proven wrong.
Additionally, it is absurd to make the case that because I did not visual see Pacman Jones slam the young woman's head on the stage that it means it's a lie, when it is stated in the police report.
Come on, sir, you're better than that.
the website should read
.../06/duke-lacrosse-scandal-buzz.html
"However, if my assumption was correct and there is an association between the two, then you sir are wrong."
Sir, excuse us while we laugh.
The context of the discussion was specifically THIS blog.
Now you have backtracked and tried to interject statements made by an individual that is associated with NOI and attribute his statements to this blog, which he is not associated with...
So, would you go to the department of the treasury and use statements one of their reps made and try to associate those statements with something published by the FDA? And then say, well they are all the government...
You tried to make a claim that THIS blog supported something we never even addressed.
Your smoke and mirrors don't work here.
You have lost any credibility you might have had with your devious attempt to undermine our righteousness.
Disgusting.
Sir, first off, excuse me for my assumptions that this sportsblog and the nation of islam shared views on the lacrosse issue. My duke lacrosse rant was directed at the nation of islam, and not this particular blog (I was familiar with the blog's one statement on the case), as I have friends on the duke lacrosse team, some of whom had their lives threatened by members of the NOI.
However, as proclaimed defenders of the right to due process and fair treatment, I ask you why you never cared to defend these athletes, but jump to the occasion to defend a man who physically abuses women, even if it means you look absurd in the process (finishing his WV degree? deputy of the law?)
Oh yeah, because you only care about one thing: race.
You, sir, are a racist, hate-driven bigot. That is a fact, and if you could somehow open your eyes to the real world you would realize how much of a racist you are.
"However, as proclaimed defenders of the right to due process and fair treatment, I ask you why you never cared to defend these athletes"
Sir, if you happened to notice, this a blog. We deal with current events.
When was the meat of the Duke case a current event? When was this blog started?
OHHH????
No kidding!!!
The blog started well after the case was big news.
Would you like us to go back in time to the spring of 2006 and start the blog then? Instead of having started it at the end of January of 2007?
We are powerful and righteous, but we can't go back in time.
"You, sir, are a racist, hate-driven bigot. That is a fact, and if you could somehow open your eyes to the real world you would realize how much of a racist you are. "
Yes, clearly, we are the racists because we can't go back in time and magically start this blog a year sooner than we did.
You are void of reason.
You've come here to try to paint us as racists, and the cruxt of your argument is based on scolding us for not writing about and event...and we weren't even in existance at the time.
Well done. We'll call Doc Brown and see if he can make us a time travelling car.
let me get this staight.
this idiot is calling nois racist, because nois believes in due process and didn't right a post defending the guys at duke.
and it turns out nois didn't even exist at the time??
noisrules, or whatever your name is, that is WEAK.
you the one that is making race the issue here. you clearly came here with an agenda. and both accusations you have made against nois, he has TOTALLY crushed you.
look in the mirror if you wanna see a racist. you are the worst kind man.
you call Tom Brady "horrible example" with an "irresponsible lifestyle" and Pacman Jones a "role model" with a "rising public perception".
Need anything more be said?
and Malcom Hex, try sticking to "right"-ing posts that actually have coherent thought processes.
"you call Tom Brady "horrible example" with an "irresponsible lifestyle" and Pacman Jones a "role model" with a "rising public perception".
Need anything more be said? "
Sir, and this has what to do with your your false assumptions and empty accusations about the Duke case?
Yea, nothing.
You are grasping at straws and desparate to justify your own racial prejudice by incoherently and haphazardly taking levying false statements against this blog.
Your lie about the Duke case exposed you, your agenda and your racial bias.
Take your spanking like a man and try to heal whatever inner emotional emptiness is within you causing you to hate those that aren't of your race.
We will pray for you.
"and Malcom Hex, try sticking to "right"-ing posts that actually have coherent thought processes. "
oh nice, after nois kicks your ass completely around the block and i point out that you are a lying racist...you go after a spelling error.
wow! you are too deep, homey.
"You are grasping at straws and desparate to justify your own racial prejudice by incoherently and haphazardly taking levying false statements against this blog."
nois, it's obvious what happened here.
the guy tried to claim that YOU made statements in support of the false accuser in the duke thing.
you proved you didnt.
he tried to claim you were against the duke boys.
you proved from a post that you supported them.
he tried to say you should have dedicated an entire post to the case.
you pointed out the blog didn't exist at the time.
NOISRULES!!1 is just MAD as hell that you have made him look like the racist joker that he is and now is going through the archives, pulling quotes completely out of context and trying to somehow follow up on his initial attempt to claim you are racist.
it's sad to watch. the man is being torn apart, yet won't quit.
with every comment he makes, he proves your right about him being a racist.
sad.
The only reason I continue to post is because of the ludicrous and unsupported claims that I am being racist, without a single shred of supporting evidence.
Also, I never once lied about the Duke case. Not even close. I said the Nation of Islam decided to take her in and protect her whilst recognizing the evil racism committed against her (entirely true). Secondly, my bias on the issue had nothing to do with race (hint: i'm black, dumbass), and everything to do with the fact that I had personal and completely innocent friends on the team who WERE THREATENED TO BE MURDERED BY MEMBERS OF THE NATION OF ISLAM.
Now, considering that, I ask you, is it wrong for me to be upset when I see a nation of islam blog preaching fairness under the law and right to due process?
"I said the Nation of Islam decided to take her in and protect her whilst recognizing the evil racism committed against her (entirely true)."
no, you said YOU directly referring to NOIS. You didn't originally say some rep for the NOI in Chicago said it. You accused NOIS of saying it. Then he proved you wrong, and YOU backtracked.
"Secondly, my bias on the issue had nothing to do with race (hint: i'm black, dumbass), and everything to do with the fact that I had personal and completely innocent friends on the team who WERE THREATENED TO BE MURDERED BY MEMBERS OF THE NATION OF ISLAM."
Yea, RIGHT.
YOU are black and your friends are a bunch of white rich kid lacrosse players at Duke. MMMhmmm.
Plus, you have made several posts and only NOW bring up that you are "black"???
Let's see, you got caught in a lie by nois about the Duke stuff...you backtrack and make up some shit about "oh a rep from NOI said it, that's what i meant"...and now you are PROVEN to be a racist...and your response is that you are "black"???
HAHAHAHA...you win shitties commmentor of the year.
"Now, considering that, I ask you, is it wrong for me to be upset when I see a nation of islam blog preaching fairness under the law and right to due process? "
ummm....didn't nois already PROVE that HE preached for due process for the DUKE boys???
so, to answer your question...NO.
You heard one rep of NOI say something and immediately assumed that NOIS said it, too.
That's bigotry and prejudice.
You are a sorry SOB.
I never got caught in a lie. I said YOU (NATION OF ISLAM) took the girl's side. And you know what, if the spokesperson of the group says it, it represents the entire group... THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A SPOKESPERSON, so nice try on that one.
"YOU are black and your friends are a bunch of white rich kid lacrosse players at Duke. MMMhmmm."
I don't even know how to respond to this. First off, in the 50-someodd comments on this subject, not a single person needed to preface their opinions with the information of their race. But suddenly, as I felt the need to dispel the ridiculous rumors that I was a racist with the information that I am in fact an African American, the fact that I hadn't brought it up before is called into question?
And how dare you call me a prejudiced bigot when you refer to a few of my friends who have gone through more than you could ever imagine as "a bunch of rich white kid[s]"? Your disbelief that a black man could be friends with a few white lacrosse players shows just how backwards your thinking is.
You have been exposed, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
"I never got caught in a lie. I said YOU (NATION OF ISLAM) took the girl's side. And you know what, if the spokesperson of the group says it, it represents the entire group... THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A SPOKESPERSON, so nice try on that one.
"
if you are STUPID enough to confuse a blog called "nationofislamsportsblog" on Blogger.com with being legitimately affiliated with the NofI.....i don't even know what to say.
So, I guess you didn't get caught in a lie.
You got caught being a retard.
"And how dare you call me a prejudiced bigot when you refer to a few of my friends who have gone through more than you could ever imagine as "a bunch of rich white kid[s]"? "
so, the duke lacrosse kids aren't a bunch of rich white kids? really? they are a diverse bunch of kids from blue collar backgrounds? stop it. you just look even dumber than you already did...
"You have been exposed, and you should be ashamed of yourself. "
yea, i've been exposed as being your intellectual superior.
although, that ain't saying much.
"gee, i thought nationofislamsportsblog.blogspot.com was written by farrakhan"
HAHAHAHA....TOOL....
"And how dare you call me a prejudiced bigot...."
that is a sad effort, bro.
you think that by trying to point the finger at brother t for describing the duke kids as rich and white deflects attention from the bigotry and prejudice you came here with, don't you?
that somehow it cancels out YOUR bigotry and prejudice?
that is juvenile, the old two wrongs don't make a right deal, man.
besides, you dispute that the dukies aren't uppermiddle class white kids?
so, how is it bigotted to describe them as such.
you've brought nothing to the table and aren't arguing rationally at all.
you already said you had friends threatened by Nation of Islam and have a problem with N of I...so, right from start, you came here biased and prejudice...you admitted it yourself.
and then you went even further, and carried that bigotry and prejudice you hold for N of I to a blog called NOIS on blogger.com. Which, if you weren't so blinded by your prejudices...any moron can see isn't really the Nation of Islam...
wow. i've read this blog for awhile. i don't think you have.
do you realize, you are a CASE STUDY in what this blog is all about...wow.
Everything this blog is about, you just personified in a series of comments. Everything.
sometimes, nois really hits home.
" I said YOU (NATION OF ISLAM) took the girl's side. And you know what, if the spokesperson of the group says it, it represents the entire group... "
another pelt on NOIS's wall....
Post a Comment