Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

And I suppose this is just "defensive driving?"

And I suppose THIS is just "defensive driving?"


Police Chief acknowledges, "This is not standard protocol."

You mean attempted vehicular homicide? I should hope not!

And sure, I'm glad the Cops didn't have to end up shooting him, but this is NOT the alternative I had in mind!


--------ADDENDUM---------

I took this down for a day to mull it over some more.  And what the hell, I'm going to put it back up.

My main point of personal conflict here is the realization that even *I* don't believe that this had a good chance of ending well.  Disturbed man, loaded rifle, what... eight cops?  In all likelihood, he get shot. And it would likely be JUSTIFIED that he gets shot.  And if he gets shot, he likely dies.

And he didn't die here.

All the same, it's not like Officer GTA there acted with any kind of care or restraint, and it's only by blind luck that he ISN'T dead - a death that would be far less justified under the present circumstances....

...But I don't see a likely alternative scenario that ends with the man being taken alive.  Just begin realistic.

But there's still a though that I can't shake, no matter how armed and dangerous this man may have been... They took THIS guy alive:


Not to mention quite a few others...


So I still find this disturbing.  And the first cop in the video didn't seem to like it too much either.

87 comments:

  1. I'm not getting particularly outraged over this one. It seems bizarre, yes, but when looking at the situation, it was clear that some sort of force was going to be required. It clearly wasn't possible to reason with this suspect, and he was holding a gun up to his chin while walking. If you shoot to wound, what happens then? If you shoot to kill, then there's no difference in the worst-case scenario. Oddly, hitting him like this may have saved lives, at the very least his own.

    So, I sort of shrug this one off. I'm sure there's some better solution possible, but it's easy to understand how they wanted to take him down without putting themselves in his line of fire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt the likelihood of taking this guy alive was probably slim. Seems like that first officer planned to try though. He seemed pretty annoyed at Officer GTA there. His chief also copped to the method being "not standard protocol."

      Is this the most outrageous case? Oh, hell no. Not by a long shot. But that's kind of the problem: this is the LEAST offensive of these clips! If this was the craziest thing I saw this month/week/today, it may not even register. That this doesn't seem so bad? THAT I find disturbing.

      Delete
    2. It is stunning to find out you support vehicular assault with intent to kill over assault with a firearm. One type of execution is no different than the other. He was a black man, after all just walking down the street run down by a white officer whose intent was to execute him. Simply amazing you two would share a viewpoint such as this after all the whining and crying you've been doing over black men getting assaulted by white police.

      Delete
    3. I support nothing of the kind, Will. Stop putting words in my mouth. (Especially as I don't know where they've been.) I'm appalled by this. But brabantio makes a.good point as did some on the original Facebook thread. You conclude intent to kill. That's good. I agree. I would have preferred more effort to take him alive. I thought that would be clear. But I don't see it as a likely outcome. Black or not he was armed, disturbed and had already fired once. The point is that he survived this. Would he have survived a direct confrontation? I just don't think was any more likely. Nothing wrong with giving ones.initial visceral reaction more thought.

      Delete
    4. "It is stunning to find out you support vehicular assault with intent to kill over assault with a firearm."

      Nobody said anything about preference. If they didn't hit him, I'm sure they would have had to shoot him.

      "One type of execution is no different than the other."

      If they had to shoot him, then there would be no problem. That's clearly different from shooting people who are not a threat. This is going to be another losing effort for you, of course.

      Delete
    5. "If they didn't hit him, I'm sure they would have had to shoot him."

      You mean "execute".

      "If they had to shoot him, then there would be no problem. "

      So you believe it is OK for the police to execute people without a trial? Hmm, interesting. That is completely different than what you've tried to claim on other articles. Are you lying now or lying then?

      Delete
    6. "You mean "execute"."

      No, I mean "shoot".

      "So you believe it is OK for the police to execute people without a trial?"

      I'm not using the word "execute" regarding someone who shoots at police officers and is killed in defense. No matter how much you pretend that there's no difference, you are bound to fail.

      Delete
    7. "And he was reportedly distributed, suffering from some for of mental illness."

      Oh, so you favor executing the mentally ill instead of taking them alive so they can get the medical help they so desperately need? Hmm, I remember an article where you called a meth-user who sells guns on the street getting killed an execution. But if he had been mentally ill, then the guy should have been put down to protect the lives of other cops?

      "Lately you've just been the lone asshole here."

      Fuck you, Eddie. You've got 2 posters, here. One lies his ass off and denies he's lying, the other you call an asshole. Then there's you who calls one criminal getting killed an execution then calls the assault of a mentally ill man justifiable. The court system would not agree with you. In fact they stop real executions if a person is deemed mentally ill. But you favor skipping the system of justice we have because this guy was mentally ill and deserved what he got, yet when your quote/unquote unarmed black man gets killed you call it an execution. All the while you bring a picture of an orange haired man (who also is mentally disturbed) and wish they'd shot him. I see where this pattern is going ... you favor executing the mentally disturbed over black men who toss their guns as their running away from the crime scene they just produced.
      So, you want to call me a troll? I don't give a fuck. You want to ban me? Again, I don't give a fuck. If you want to ban the "lone conservative voice" because he gets fed up with the lies coming from your only other poster then you go right ahead and do that.

      Delete
    8. There is literally no accurate statement of fact in those entire reply. Not one. That's amazing. You actually managed to get absolutely nothing right. Also... You didn't actually watch the troll video, did you?

      Delete
    9. Yes, I did watch the video. I don't think it was called a troll video. And like the last video you brought about cops killing a criminal I think the if the criminal puts themselves in that position then they should expect results that they may not like. You see, Eddie, I'm not a hypocrite. I think criminals put themselves into dangerous situations willfully/knowingly and if something bad happens to them, then perhaps they should have thought a little harder before doing what they did to get what they got. You, OTOH, think just because the guy is black and either sells his gun or throws it away then his felonious criminal actions should provide a shield from any danger as law enforcement attempt to stop him. Or to put it simply: the cops should let all black men safely run away after they commit ANY type of crime (as long as they throw their guns away before being tackled), but run down the mentally ill ones.

      What the hell do YOU care about facts? You bring your whines about right-wingers and use facts that are as factual as 1+1=7 then get mad when it is pointed out you are wrong and don't apologize for months (if ever), while never correcting your non-facts.

      Delete
    10. No, I think that if a man is unarmed then he is not a threat that justified the use is deadly force. Color doesn't enter into it for me... But it certainly does with the cops. Their record is also irrelevant in the moment. If thsure unarmed they're not a threat that justifies deadly force. End of story. Unlike the cops I just don't happen to believe that black skin equals having a weapon.

      As for my "non facts,' tell you what... Why don't you leave a list... 10... 5... 3... However many you want, and I will directly address what ever you think are the most noteworthy, memorable or egregious examples of these TONIGHT. Or... On my next post after you leave them. I'm dying to see what you come up with.

      And I look forward to anihalting it.

      Delete
    11. "And I look forward to anihalting it."

      You've ignored them before, you will again. No thanks, I don't need to do that kind of work just to appease you. Unless your short memory forgets about the 15 million deaths in "67 alone" from small pox for starters. Let's just say any time you bring a stat it is probably false.

      Delete
    12. Bullshit. You lie. I addressed that many times over. You lie. Bring a substantive example. You lie. See? You lie. I can just keep saying too. You lie. Doesn't make it true. You lie. Bring an example of two or stfu and stop whining. You lie. And I addressed the genocide thing in depth. You lie. IMMEDIATELY. You lie. In a video specifically addressed to you. You lie. Prove otherwise. You lie. Prove me wrong. You lie. Give me an actual example or stfu about it. You lie. Answer my challenge or admit defeat. You lie.

      Delete
    13. Ok, how many deaths actually occurred in "67 alone" by small pox during your genocide rant? Bring those "facts" that you say I lied about.
      Because YOU said: "Variola Major (look it up) killed 15 Million people worldwide in 1967 ALONE. Do you know what finally eradicated it for good? VACCINATIONS."

      Delete
    14. http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/02/william-was-right-and-thank-you-for.html

      You look really stupid when you comment on things and you haven't watched the videos.

      And MAKE SURE you watch it to the VERY END. Because I make the point a couple different ways. (And I'll know if you didn't based on your argument.)

      So WATCH IT. And then come back here, or comment there.

      Done. Peace out.

      Delete
    15. No thanks. I've proven you bring fake stats to further your rants. If I hadn't said something you would have continued thinking that was true. You don't check your facts, you just fly with them because you know the liberal will fall for anything anti-right-wing. There are plenty of other examples but I'm just not going to search years of articles to keep proving you bring fake stats to further your hatred of anything not liberal. You should just start checking what you actually claim is a fact instead of just making shit up and letting all your sheeple fall for it.

      Ditto: Done. Peace out.

      Delete
    16. So... you make a claim, I challenge it and you whither. Well done. You got nothing. Moving on then...

      Delete
  2. So when an accidental killing happens you have no problem calling it an execution? That is on par with your logic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, I never called an accidental killing an "execution".

    ReplyDelete
  4. We've gone through this before. Why you keep denying it is completely illogical. Your words are there for everyone to see and I've brought multiple examples of you saying it. Both you and Ed have called it an execution. Why do you continue to deny it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have gone through this before. I didn't call it an execution, and you haven't proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know how you can say that after I HAVE proven it ... over and over. Now, even your friends at MM can see what a liar you are. Are you sure you want to continue denying this?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You asserting that you proved it doesn't mean anything to anyone, sadly for you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wtf is wrong with you? Watch the fucking video, asshole!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sadly for you, my actual proof of you calling it an execution does mean something to those with a slight intelligence. Of course, apparently, that leaves you out of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. More empty assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. William, link, copy&paste or stfu. OK?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eddie, what's wrong with YOU? Type the fucking words.

    ReplyDelete
  13. O-fucking-K: Link: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html#disqus_thread
    http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html#comment-1980582034


    Me: "Well then, talk about how this current situation involves a hardened
    criminal with an extensive arrest/conviction record is being classified
    as "an unarmed black man killed by police" as if he had done nothing to
    put him into the situation where he could be killed for his actions."

    Barbie: Why
    do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial? He was on the
    ground when he was shot with another officer on top of him. If you
    want to argue that's appropriate instead of an arrest and a trial, that
    would be your argument to make before it's mine to dispute. That's not
    how the system works.

    He is responding to me asking him to discuss THIS situation and HE calls it an execution. How dense do you people have to be to NOT understand that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. You already admitted that you had the same view whether it was an accident or not. I was talking about your general view.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your stupid reply about Barbie's comments only reiterates what I say about watching a video as opposed to typing words. How can I "copy/paste" a fucking video?

    ReplyDelete
  16. You can claim whatever you want, but it is plain as day you were talking about that situation. Because I asked you to discuss that situation, NOT my opinion of it. Even you second sentence shows you were talking about that situation and NOT my opinion of it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We were already talking about your opinion. Your desire to talk about something else doesn't change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's right so I got you back on-topic and you said what you did.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, I was still talking about your general view, which was never off-topic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Were you born stupid will or did you have to practice. You prove nothing. And the whole deal is irrelevant. Anyway. If this I'd what you proof of anything just stfu.this is too dumb to even ridicule.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Listen bub: I alone dictate the format and content on my blog and don't you forget it. I answered your question and gave you link to the answer. That's already more than your worth. If you do not wish to consume the content here as it is presented your are more than welcome to take your business elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If that were true then you will have no problem bringing my quote where I called it an execution.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And that's why normal thinking people have such a hard time with liberals. Your ilk can't read or comprehend basic English.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I also never said that you called it an execution, and using that term doesn't imply that you did.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So, that means you called it an execution and attributed that to me. Very honest of you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No, I didn't claim that you used the word. If you ever wanted to show how that term is inappropriate for the concept of the police killing criminals for the sake of saving taxpayer money, you would have done so. Since you didn't, you obviously don't have a legitimate complaint to make.


    You, on the other hand, have claimed that I've used words that I didn't, which would be you attributing them falsely to me. So, as always, this is just projection on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The only problem with that is that you were replying to a comment that didn't have anything about saving the taxpayers money in it. You know I've brought your quote and the statement you were replying to. Everyone can see how dishonest you are.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That isn't a problem at all, since it doesn't have to be immediate in order to still be about your viewpoint. That wasn't even a good try by your lowly standards.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Certainly better than you trying to claim something from days or weeks beforehand and claiming you were talking about it ... out of the blue. And, yet, you still have no connection of anything I said to you claiming I thought it was or support that the situation was an execution.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your original comment on the thread was only twelve hours previous to what you quoted here. It was very early in the thread, so it wasn't "out of the blue" by any stretch of the imagination. Your original comment was from one week ago, so imagining that my comment was "days or weeks" after it is quite amusing.

    "And, yet, you still have no connection of anything I said to you claiming I thought it was or support that the situation was an execution."



    I don't care whether you call it an execution or not. If you think that the police should be able to kill anyone for the sake of the taxpayer, that would clearly be an execution. You have no argument to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've never said I thought that. I've said the criminals who act out their criminal behavior should expect to be put in danger of that possibility. Now, show how that equates to me thinking the police can "execute" "anyone"?

    ReplyDelete
  32. You ranted about the idea of putting someone in prison for fifty years, using that as evidence for your claim that liberals are ruining this country. Obviously, you didn't want him to go to prison, so you favored him being killed instead.

    Even besides that, your current description doesn't make anything any better. If a criminal is supposed to "expect to be put in danger", then how do the police have any responsibility for their actions?

    Also, you should note that "anyone" was used to address your demonizing of Harris. In other words, it doesn't really matter how many felony convictions someone has, the question remains as to why any unarmed criminal should be executed instead of brought to trial.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Where is the part that I advocated executing him as opposed to me saying he put himself into that position by his own actions?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Those aren't opposed to each other. You advocated execution by your outrage at the concept of imprisonment.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No, that's a lie. I was outraged that Eddie could compare THAT situation to the other situations where an "unarmed black man" was killed by police.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You: "When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed" shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country."

    You were very clear in your opposition to imprisonment. Would you like to change your story, now that you've been reminded?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was very clear that he got what he should have expected doing what he was doing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Again, that isn't opposed to your view that unarmed criminals should be killed in order to save taxpayer money. And, as noted above, that doesn't make your view any more reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My "view" has never been they "should" be killed. Time for you to get over your misinterpretations of what I DID say and what you think I said.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Since you oppose imprisonment, the only other alternatives are to release them or kill them. Which of those two were you advocating?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't oppose imprisonment. So neither would be my answer.

    ReplyDelete
  42. So, "fucking liberals are ruining this country" because we want to "support him" with "tax money for the
    next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system", according to you, but you don't oppose that? Hilarious.


    Would you like to try again, or should I expect a string of random and unhinged attempts at jokes at this point?

    ReplyDelete
  43. What difference does it make? You're being an idiot, arguing in circles about what brabantio said or didn't say ad nauseum, an the point is completely irrelevant to the issue. Its just you being an obstinate sonofavitch trying to "prove" that he believes something he doesn't. Its nonense and you need to move on. Ffs you don't get to decide or tell people what they believe just because you can convolute an absurd back and forth that started from a false presumption on your part in the first place! You're an idiot. And this shit is why nobody likes you. Just watch the fucking video. Asshole. And then tell me want you disagree with. Its that simple. The only reason you'd need to cut and paste my words would be to "prove" some irrelevant point that you misunderstood, either deliberately or on account of not being burdened with great intelligence. I'm done here until you watch the video and respond like a normal rational human being. Fuck me!

    ReplyDelete
  44. You taking my statements out of context and misinterpreting them is really of no concern to me.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Show the context that changes the meaning of your quote.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Fuck you, I live here. Watch the goddamn video or whfu or gtfo. Asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  47. William, I don't give a fuck. This is all an irrelevant ad hominen argument on your part. Just knock it off. There is no fucking point to this nonsense that you do. If he says you're mistating his position then you are misstating his position regardless of what he wrote. Either one of you is or was confused, he mispoke or you misread. And none of that even matters because each man has the absolute last word on what his own position is! What thell is wrong with you?! Why don't you try defending your own position instead of playing these childish games in an effort to misstate someone else's? Mother-fucker,man!

    ReplyDelete
  48. You mean like this?:

    "So, you didn't really read about this one, did you? I'll admit the mocking was way over the top, but the guy was "unarmed" because he sold his gun to an undercover cop who then attempted to arrest him before he ran away. When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed"
    shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country."

    or maybe this one?"

    "And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? What if the guns he has sold are used to kill your son or wife? You gonna support his dead ass then? Please try to get a grip on reality, here. This guy was no innocent teenager smoking pot then getting killed by the neighborhood watch guy.
    And it isn't like the guy who owed $50K in child support who got shot in the back 8 times. And it isn't like the guy who just robbed a store before getting shot. Or the guy starting fights at a mass transit station. He was a hardened criminal with an extensive record for violence and mayhem. Why should I feel sorry for this guy for one second? He put himself into that situation and got what he asked for."


    Did I say your ilk "wants" to support him? Did I say I "oppose" imprisonment? Did I say any "should" be killed? Did I say I support "executing" these people? NO, I said they get what they ask for. Which was my point to begin with, that his article was way off base claiming this is just another "unarmed black man killed by police". You are a total moron. The problem is that Ed agrees with you. And I guess I just have to deal with that because I need realize what KIND of people I'm discussing with.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Just proved your lying ass wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "William, I don't give a fuck."


    Of course you don't give a fuck. That's how I can tell when I'm right. You refuse to continue a discussion. I will NOT knock it off. He is questioning my credibility and I've shown him to be wrong. You would do the same when I question yours, so there IS a point to all this. Do you hate it when I'm right and you're wrong? Too fucking bad. Defend yourself with reality, not your usual deflections because you can't defend yourself. And, that is what I tell him. So ... we end up going in circles ... because he can't handle it when I'm right and he is wrong. Just like you.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Did I say your ilk "wants" to support him? Did I say I "oppose" imprisonment? Did I say anyone "should" be killed? Did I say I support "executing" these people?"

    You were supposed to be demonstrating how the context shows that you meant something else, not that you didn't explicitly say any of those things. As it stands, those are all the obvious meanings conveyed with your rant.

    Try again?

    ReplyDelete
  52. No, you proved me correct. You're just making more assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "He is questioning my credibility and I've shown him to be wrong."


    You have no credibility. Do we need to go over your "income law" debacle again? Or you claiming that I said that there was a global conspiracy involving gay people? Or that Eddie made a genuine threat of hitting people in the head with a brick? Or that there was some scientific evidence shown that allowed women to get to vote in this country?


    You say whatever you feel you need to say in order to perpetuate your bigoted viewpoint at any given moment. You've proven that over and over and over again. That's why you have zero credibility. Here, you seem to have had an emotional reaction which showed that you don't care if an unarmed criminal is shot. You obviously can't simultaneously grasp the concepts of "he's a criminal" and "the police need to act in a responsible and legitimate manner", as if it's either one or the other. It's not. Rational people can recognize that someone is a criminal, and that they don't have to empathize with a criminal act in order to expect the police to act appropriately. You don't seem to be able to do that.


    You're the problem here, and you can't admit it. That's why you need to deflect your failures onto others, so that you don't have to face them as your responsibility. Just like you always do when you misunderstand something or if anything in the world contradicts your bigoted view of how everything liberal or secular is automatically wrong. You invent some issue that allows you to say that I'm the problem, just so you don't have to be uncomfortable in your own head. And everyone knows it, probably even you on some level.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No, I don't need to try again. I showed that your interpretation of what I actually said is incorrect. You put in words that I did not and those words changed the meaning of what I said. I don't need to hold your hand and explain it to you like you're a 4 year old ... or do I?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Do we need to go over your "income law" debacle again?"

    Only if you need to get your clock cleaned again.

    "Or that Eddie made a genuine threat of hitting people in the head with a brick?"


    There was an article in yesterday's SF Chronicle that had a police officer getting hit on the head with a deadly object (during the annual 4/20 celebration). I wonder if the guy has been following Eddies orders.


    The rest of you shit is just you crying as I beat you down in any given conversation. Which is why you constantly talk in circles ... because you are no match for me when it comes to honest discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You showed no such thing. You're not even using the word "interpretation" correctly, and it's not advanced vocabulary. I never claimed that you used those specific terms; what you would need to do is to show that you mean something else that is inconsistent with the terms that I used. You copying and pasting all of what you said only supports my interpretation, it does not counter it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. All you have are assertions, as always. The last time we went over your "income law" claim, you essentially had to admit that you invented the term on your own, since you couldn't identify a single other person in the entire world who had ever used it before you had. And people getting hit in the head with objects doesn't make every single mention of hitting someone in the head with an object a threat, obviously.

    And, as always, you resort to accusations of "crying" whenever someone makes a valid argument against you, seemingly unaware of how often you criticize others and how that clearly makes you a flaming hypocrite. You assert that you win arguments and that I "talk in circles", while you can't actually address your shortcomings. Like I said.

    ReplyDelete
  58. " I never claimed that you used those specific terms; what you would need
    to do is to show that you mean something else that is inconsistent with
    the terms that I used."


    I don't NEED to do anything more. I've done what I NEED to do and that is show that you changed my wording around to suit your own loopy thought patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  59. " And people getting hit in the head with objects doesn't make every
    single mention of hitting someone in the head with an object a threat,
    obviously."


    But, in a court of law, a threat is a threat. No matter how many people actually do it. And in this case it apparently happened. Should I direct the SF police to Eddies blog site and alert them to possible promotion of violent threats against innocent people?

    ReplyDelete
  60. No, I didn't change your wording, I used my own to describe what you were advocating. You failed to show how your meaning was in any way different, or how there could even be an alternative interpretation at all. So, you failed to show how the context helped you, while you had asserted that it did.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No, it's not. Hyperbole is hyperbole. Someone hitting a cop in the head with a different object in a different situation entirely has no bearing on what someone said on a blog two years ago.


    All you're doing is proving my point that you'll say whatever you feel you need to say, regardless of truth, logic, or any sort of sense whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Someone hitting a cop in the head with a different object in a different
    situation entirely has no bearing on what someone said on a blog two
    years ago."


    You don't know if it was a different object. The article didn't specify. So, it may very well have been a brick.


    And, ask OJ if "hyperbole" makes a difference when making threats of personal harm.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "I used my own to describe what you were advocating."


    That's right. So YOU called it an execution, not me. Thanks for finally admitting you are in the wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  64. If you don't know what the object was, then you can't connect it to Eddie's comment. That would be an assumption on your part.

    As for OJ, different situations are interpreted differently. Just because some comments are genuine threats doesn't mean that there's no such thing as hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I never said that you used that term, so there's no victory for you here. Thank you for admitting that I didn't change your wording, contrary to your previous claim.

    ReplyDelete
  66. But there's certainly a giant failure on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  67. And when OJ killed his wife, then that "hyperbole" became real. Just like when someone gets hit on the head with a brick, Eddies "hyperbole" becomes real.
    And promoting real harm is still against the law. Even 2 years later.

    ReplyDelete
  68. You would have to demonstrate that, somehow. And, to preempt your next empty assertion, you have not done so.

    ReplyDelete
  69. A statement by OJ was viewed differently after he killed his wife. Notice how that's the same person for both of those, and how that's wildly different from trying to connect someone else hitting a police officer in the head with some unknown object to what Eddie wrote on a blog two years ago.


    You would have to show how he was "promoting real harm" when he wasn't even speaking to anyone specifically, and when it relied on someone saying something stupid to him. That's clearly hyperbole, and you'd get laughed at by any law enforcement agency that you complained to.


    Do you want to continue, or do you think you've proven my point about your complete lack of a filter yet?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Then call the cops. Or else STFU or I'll HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK. I'll even SHOW you said brick in my next video, OK? Now either call the cops or drop it, Asswipe.

    ReplyDelete
  71. You're not a "conservative voice" you're an idiot who's more interested in using strawmen to "prove" something about me or brabantio and by extension liberals than you are in debating the issues. Ad hominem doesn't prove anything. Didn't you ever learn that? Or were you ditching class that day? That your ad hominem attacks are based on strawman arguments? Only proves everything brabantio and I (and countless others, offline via email) have said about YOU.

    ReplyDelete