Georgia couple sentenced for terroristic threats towards children
- Thread starter Dude653
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
Personally, I believe that it makes no sense to hold something against someone that they cannot change. One such thing is skin color. None of us can change our skin color. ( And, why would we want to? We - and everyone else - should accept us as God made us. )
This is not to say anything about 'attitude', etc. -- things people can change.
As maxwel indicated -- I would be one of the people who would try to stop the harassment. Based on what we know about the story, it was a group of people having an innocent party. No one should have been harassing them.
And, yes -- actual threats are a serious matter.
On the flip side --- I also understand where wsblind is coming from. The reality is that - we live in a country where - sometimes - 'facts' are "invented" - to drive someone's agenda. What little bit of truth is used by the media - is combined with a lot of lies - to create the stories they tell. I say "stories" because long ago the media stopped simply reporting the news. Now they have an agenda. They 'dramatize' everything to get people "hooked" into being overly-emotionally-driven to support whatever-direction the media agenda wants people to go in. A lot of the time, the story they tell did not even happen! Sometimes, part or all of the story is simply "made-up" -- and then "fed" to the masses as fact.
And then --- people -- not wanting to believe that they are being lied to - swallow it whole and believe whatever they have been told.
It happens...
wsblind is probably in disbelief because this kind of thing happens all-too-often.
That is the kind of world we now live in.
You have to be careful what you fall for...
The truth and facts of the matter is this --- we don't really know what happened. It is 'likely' that the two people were guilty of something; it is also 'possible' that they were guilty of nothing ( in the strictest legal sense ). We simply do not know. Without proper-and-sufficient research-and-investigation, we probably have no certain hope of knowing. ( That is how bad it really is... )
This is not to say anything about 'attitude', etc. -- things people can change.
As maxwel indicated -- I would be one of the people who would try to stop the harassment. Based on what we know about the story, it was a group of people having an innocent party. No one should have been harassing them.
And, yes -- actual threats are a serious matter.
On the flip side --- I also understand where wsblind is coming from. The reality is that - we live in a country where - sometimes - 'facts' are "invented" - to drive someone's agenda. What little bit of truth is used by the media - is combined with a lot of lies - to create the stories they tell. I say "stories" because long ago the media stopped simply reporting the news. Now they have an agenda. They 'dramatize' everything to get people "hooked" into being overly-emotionally-driven to support whatever-direction the media agenda wants people to go in. A lot of the time, the story they tell did not even happen! Sometimes, part or all of the story is simply "made-up" -- and then "fed" to the masses as fact.
And then --- people -- not wanting to believe that they are being lied to - swallow it whole and believe whatever they have been told.
It happens...
wsblind is probably in disbelief because this kind of thing happens all-too-often.
That is the kind of world we now live in.
You have to be careful what you fall for...
The truth and facts of the matter is this --- we don't really know what happened. It is 'likely' that the two people were guilty of something; it is also 'possible' that they were guilty of nothing ( in the strictest legal sense ). We simply do not know. Without proper-and-sufficient research-and-investigation, we probably have no certain hope of knowing. ( That is how bad it really is...
)Oh! You personally believe that? That's good. Do you also personally believe that yelling racial slurs at people is something different from "exercising your freedom of speech"? Because few comments ago you weren't so sure and you were giving me lessons on the word "insult".
wsblind said (in post 17) this:
"Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech."
Now, wsblind said this because, for some reason, he doesn't believe the couple had a shotgun. He believes it's an exageration of the media, bla, bla. But even if they didn't have a shot gun, you can't say that "in actuality they were exercising their freedom of speech" because yelling racial slurs and insults at others while driving cars with the confederate flag is not only offensive but also very scary and IT'S NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! And all of you here know that very good!
We know they are guilty because the article provides a video where the white woman cries and apologizes to the black woman for what she did. You wouldn't say you're sorry if you were innocent.
wsblind said (in post 17) this:
"Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech."
Now, wsblind said this because, for some reason, he doesn't believe the couple had a shotgun. He believes it's an exageration of the media, bla, bla. But even if they didn't have a shot gun, you can't say that "in actuality they were exercising their freedom of speech" because yelling racial slurs and insults at others while driving cars with the confederate flag is not only offensive but also very scary and IT'S NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! And all of you here know that very good!
The truth and facts of the matter is this --- we don't really know what happened. It is 'likely' that the two people were guilty of something; it is also 'possible' that they were guilty of nothing ( in the strictest legal sense ). We simply do not know. Without proper-and-sufficient research-and-investigation, we probably have no certain hope of knowing. ( That is how bad it really is... )
)
W
Again. I am not in disbelief. And this is sickening if this were true. If I was there, and witnessed it and it played out as the media is reporting it......I would be in jail, with bloody knuckles. And the WHITE suspect would still be in the hospital.
Just the way the media is reporting it gets people charged up. We will start looking at the whole thing through our emotions and emotions are not OBJECTIVE.
I would not be surprised if this case was contrived in many ways to get us all emotional to make the truth blurred. I am not saying that it IS contrived.
Just the way the media is reporting it gets people charged up. We will start looking at the whole thing through our emotions and emotions are not OBJECTIVE.
I would not be surprised if this case was contrived in many ways to get us all emotional to make the truth blurred. I am not saying that it IS contrived.
W
Personally, I believe that it makes no sense to hold something against someone that they cannot change. One such thing is skin color. None of us can change our skin color. ( And, why would we want to? We - and everyone else - should accept us as God made us. )
This is not to say anything about 'attitude', etc. -- things people can change.
As maxwel indicated -- I would be one of the people who would try to stop the harassment. Based on what we know about the story, it was a group of people having an innocent party. No one should have been harassing them.
And, yes -- actual threats are a serious matter.
On the flip side --- I also understand where wsblind is coming from. The reality is that - we live in a country where - sometimes - 'facts' are "invented" - to drive someone's agenda. What little bit of truth is used by the media - is combined with a lot of lies - to create the stories they tell. I say "stories" because long ago the media stopped simply reporting the news. Now they have an agenda. They 'dramatize' everything to get people "hooked" into being overly-emotionally-driven to support whatever-direction the media agenda wants people to go in. A lot of the time, the story they tell did not even happen! Sometimes, part or all of the story is simply "made-up" -- and then "fed" to the masses as fact.
And then --- people -- not wanting to believe that they are being lied to - swallow it whole and believe whatever they have been told.
It happens...
wsblind is probably in disbelief because this kind of thing happens all-too-often.
That is the kind of world we now live in.
You have to be careful what you fall for...
The truth and facts of the matter is this --- we don't really know what happened. It is 'likely' that the two people were guilty of something; it is also 'possible' that they were guilty of nothing ( in the strictest legal sense ). We simply do not know. Without proper-and-sufficient research-and-investigation, we probably have no certain hope of knowing. ( That is how bad it really is... )
This is not to say anything about 'attitude', etc. -- things people can change.
As maxwel indicated -- I would be one of the people who would try to stop the harassment. Based on what we know about the story, it was a group of people having an innocent party. No one should have been harassing them.
And, yes -- actual threats are a serious matter.
On the flip side --- I also understand where wsblind is coming from. The reality is that - we live in a country where - sometimes - 'facts' are "invented" - to drive someone's agenda. What little bit of truth is used by the media - is combined with a lot of lies - to create the stories they tell. I say "stories" because long ago the media stopped simply reporting the news. Now they have an agenda. They 'dramatize' everything to get people "hooked" into being overly-emotionally-driven to support whatever-direction the media agenda wants people to go in. A lot of the time, the story they tell did not even happen! Sometimes, part or all of the story is simply "made-up" -- and then "fed" to the masses as fact.
And then --- people -- not wanting to believe that they are being lied to - swallow it whole and believe whatever they have been told.
It happens...
wsblind is probably in disbelief because this kind of thing happens all-too-often.
That is the kind of world we now live in.
You have to be careful what you fall for...
The truth and facts of the matter is this --- we don't really know what happened. It is 'likely' that the two people were guilty of something; it is also 'possible' that they were guilty of nothing ( in the strictest legal sense ). We simply do not know. Without proper-and-sufficient research-and-investigation, we probably have no certain hope of knowing. ( That is how bad it really is...
)
I don't understand what you mean. I know the media can (and most often does) manipulate the public. But I don't see how this article does that; and I read it twice. The article reports with impartiality what happened. If you see something different, then, please, show me.
There must be a reason why you think the case is contrieved. What I don't understand is where do you get this feeling from. Not from the article because the article isn't biased.
There must be a reason why you think the case is contrieved. What I don't understand is where do you get this feeling from. Not from the article because the article isn't biased.
G
Yes, I do believe that. Because I think that it is right-and-proper-and-correct-and-good - and it makes good sense. I also believe that giving anyone "special treatment" based strictly on their skin color breaks the rule to which there is no exception. ( think: "the exception, not the rule" )
People are people. They are not animals. Of course, sometimes they act like animals. And, people from all "ethnicities" / cultures do so at times.
As long as a person acts within the reasonable bounds of civility, I see no reason why I should not treat them with the same civility.
I do not have anything against black people - or any other kind of people - as individuals - as long as they act in an honest and decent manner. I am "prejudiced-as-h..." against a bad 'attitude'. ( Like, say - two people with a shotgun giving unnecessary grief to a random group of innocent people. ) But, you should never find me treating someone badly simply because of the color of their skin.
God made us all, and loves us all the same. In God's eyes, every person on this Earth is just as important as every other person. That is what my Bible tells me, anyway...
Please don't confuse the 'legal' and 'moral' implications, here.
When it comes to the legality of "exercising your freedom of speech", saying racial slurs falls under it. That is not to say that I believe that it is okay to do it. ( Now enters the 'moral' implication. )
What I am trying to get you to see is the difference between 'words' and 'action' - from a 'legal' perspective. The two are far from each other in terms of what the 'law' should punish for infractions involving the one versus the other.
Should there be a spirit-of-the-law remedy for the severe abuse of such? Sure.
Should there be a letter-of-the-law "instant hard strike" against the most petty occurances of such? Absolutely not...
After all, the best solution to a lot of these types of things is not a [ specific ] law to govern it -- but, that it should be "handled" - as a base-level first-step gesture, at least - by well-thinking individuals who can persuade the "would-be-perpetrators" to "back down" and change their minds about what they are setting out to do. In other words - in the scenario being discussed - all of us "conservative white guys on CC" saying to those two people "What in the world do you think you are doing?!?!? Leave those people alone!" and "We are not going to let you do this. It is wrong."...
The real problem these days is -- everyone wants "a law" to regulate every little nuance of any-and-every-possible-action -- so that "the police can handle it and we don't have to" -- which has to some extent become 'confusion' for everyone - no one knows whether to "get involved" or not any more...
It's sad...
You want "a law" to "strike down" instantly anyone who utters a racial slur -- yet, you also want the man-on-the-street to "get involved" and prevent you from being raped out behind some building as the man who wants to rape you is about to succeed.
Do you not understand the 'legal' ( and 'social' ) conflict here?
Do you realize that people sometimes end up in jail ( or, experience "trouble with the law" ) for trying to help other people?
Do you realize that people [ in the U.S.A. ] have been sued by other people who broke into their houses with the intent to steal - and the other people won the law suit...???
Do you know why this happens?
It happens because we - as a society - have been fooled into believing that we should give 100% of our responsibility as "good citizens" to look after and protect each other - to the police.
We have lost the idea that society - as a whole - should "self-regulate" without "a law" of some sort touching every little possible scenario of everyday life.
And, it has become incredibly ridiculous.
The "law" that should govern is called "common decency" -- and, everyone used to know exactly what that meant.
About the time of "Elvis has left the building." -- 'common-sense' started leaving too - understandably followed not long after by 'common-decency'.
( I am speaking of this at a 'society' level; I know there are still some good decent people left in this country. )
When the people-at-large cease to believe that the people-at-large can-and-should handle 'minor' infractions of speech-related incidents...
"Lord help us!"
When the people-at-large cease to care anymore about common decency...
"Lord, just kill us all - we're no good to anybody."
I am pretty sure about what I am talking about. What are you talking about?
In a day when things that are not even 'speech' are considered to be "freedom of speech" , ...
I think a lot of people really need a lesson about what "freedom of speech" is and is not. A history lesson about the confederate flag ( the real history ) would be good, too. Some folks just might discover some things in our past that they have never heard of -- and, some things they were told and believe - that "never were"...
I don't think wsblind was intending to put across that he had no problem at all with what the two people were doing. I am more inclined to think that he was merely suggesting that he could certainly believe it if the real story were widely different than what was indicated in the article. His comments seem to be more "against" the media than the two people...
I have not seen that video. No doubt it is worth something to that effect.
I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread is saying that they believe "outright" that the two people are "most definitely entirely and completely innocent" -- only that, they wonder how much the media has twisted the story from the truth to make it follow their agenda.
Do not underestimate the extent of lies-in-the-media that some of us are trying to get you to understand is the true reality in this country.
It is a well-known fact that - very often - 'stuff' is simply "made up" in the media stories...
Sometimes, you never know what to believe...
Have you ever heard the statement:
"Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see."
Well --- it's good advice.
Don't misunderstand what I am saying. If two people, with a shotgun, were threatening a random group of people having an innocent party ---- then, by all means, yes -- someone - a neighbor - a passerby - the police - somebody - should intervene on behalf of the innocent. Especially children. Absolutely! I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree.
Notice that nowhere in my descriptions did I mention skin color. It does not matter what skin color the "assailants" have, nor their targets.
Those doing wrong should be stopped -- to protect the innocent.
However ---- what some of us are saying is -- if the 'law' is allowed to 'crucify' someone for the slightest 'infraction' of the law ( a letter-of-the-law mentality ) -- it will ultimately do more harm than good...
It is a fact!
Think about it...
I keep saying "legal perspective"; you keep saying "racial slur"...
You are standing in the forest staring intensely at a single tree.
Back up until you can see the whole forest -- or, at least, more of it.
Someone could call me 'honky' all day long, and I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. You know - "consider the source" and move on. After all -- I am an adult who has a secure emotional stability that can handle some 'name-calling'... ( "words-only" )
But -- start waving a gun around ( "action" ) -- and, you have my attention...
Surely you agree that a threat from someone holding a gun pointed in your direction would be a much more serious issue than any 'racial slur' that they might speak.
Why then are you so "hung up" on the 'racial slur' part of this story ---- as if it was the "worst" crime committed...???
People are people. They are not animals. Of course, sometimes they act like animals. And, people from all "ethnicities" / cultures do so at times.
As long as a person acts within the reasonable bounds of civility, I see no reason why I should not treat them with the same civility.
I do not have anything against black people - or any other kind of people - as individuals - as long as they act in an honest and decent manner. I am "prejudiced-as-h..." against a bad 'attitude'. ( Like, say - two people with a shotgun giving unnecessary grief to a random group of innocent people. ) But, you should never find me treating someone badly simply because of the color of their skin.
God made us all, and loves us all the same. In God's eyes, every person on this Earth is just as important as every other person. That is what my Bible tells me, anyway...
Please don't confuse the 'legal' and 'moral' implications, here.
When it comes to the legality of "exercising your freedom of speech", saying racial slurs falls under it. That is not to say that I believe that it is okay to do it. ( Now enters the 'moral' implication. )
What I am trying to get you to see is the difference between 'words' and 'action' - from a 'legal' perspective. The two are far from each other in terms of what the 'law' should punish for infractions involving the one versus the other.
Should there be a spirit-of-the-law remedy for the severe abuse of such? Sure.
Should there be a letter-of-the-law "instant hard strike" against the most petty occurances of such? Absolutely not...
After all, the best solution to a lot of these types of things is not a [ specific ] law to govern it -- but, that it should be "handled" - as a base-level first-step gesture, at least - by well-thinking individuals who can persuade the "would-be-perpetrators" to "back down" and change their minds about what they are setting out to do. In other words - in the scenario being discussed - all of us "conservative white guys on CC" saying to those two people "What in the world do you think you are doing?!?!? Leave those people alone!" and "We are not going to let you do this. It is wrong."...
The real problem these days is -- everyone wants "a law" to regulate every little nuance of any-and-every-possible-action -- so that "the police can handle it and we don't have to" -- which has to some extent become 'confusion' for everyone - no one knows whether to "get involved" or not any more...
It's sad...
You want "a law" to "strike down" instantly anyone who utters a racial slur -- yet, you also want the man-on-the-street to "get involved" and prevent you from being raped out behind some building as the man who wants to rape you is about to succeed.
Do you not understand the 'legal' ( and 'social' ) conflict here?
Do you realize that people sometimes end up in jail ( or, experience "trouble with the law" ) for trying to help other people?
Do you realize that people [ in the U.S.A. ] have been sued by other people who broke into their houses with the intent to steal - and the other people won the law suit...???
Do you know why this happens?
It happens because we - as a society - have been fooled into believing that we should give 100% of our responsibility as "good citizens" to look after and protect each other - to the police.
We have lost the idea that society - as a whole - should "self-regulate" without "a law" of some sort touching every little possible scenario of everyday life.
And, it has become incredibly ridiculous.
The "law" that should govern is called "common decency" -- and, everyone used to know exactly what that meant.
About the time of "Elvis has left the building." -- 'common-sense' started leaving too - understandably followed not long after by 'common-decency'.
( I am speaking of this at a 'society' level; I know there are still some good decent people left in this country. )
When the people-at-large cease to believe that the people-at-large can-and-should handle 'minor' infractions of speech-related incidents...
"Lord help us!"
When the people-at-large cease to care anymore about common decency...
"Lord, just kill us all - we're no good to anybody."
I am pretty sure about what I am talking about. What are you talking about?
In a day when things that are not even 'speech' are considered to be "freedom of speech"
, ...I think a lot of people really need a lesson about what "freedom of speech" is and is not. A history lesson about the confederate flag ( the real history ) would be good, too. Some folks just might discover some things in our past that they have never heard of -- and, some things they were told and believe - that "never were"...
I don't think wsblind was intending to put across that he had no problem at all with what the two people were doing. I am more inclined to think that he was merely suggesting that he could certainly believe it if the real story were widely different than what was indicated in the article. His comments seem to be more "against" the media than the two people...
I have not seen that video. No doubt it is worth something to that effect.
I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread is saying that they believe "outright" that the two people are "most definitely entirely and completely innocent" -- only that, they wonder how much the media has twisted the story from the truth to make it follow their agenda.
Do not underestimate the extent of lies-in-the-media that some of us are trying to get you to understand is the true reality in this country.
It is a well-known fact that - very often - 'stuff' is simply "made up" in the media stories...
Sometimes, you never know what to believe...
Have you ever heard the statement:
"Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see."
Well --- it's good advice.
Don't misunderstand what I am saying. If two people, with a shotgun, were threatening a random group of people having an innocent party ---- then, by all means, yes -- someone - a neighbor - a passerby - the police - somebody - should intervene on behalf of the innocent. Especially children. Absolutely! I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree.
Notice that nowhere in my descriptions did I mention skin color. It does not matter what skin color the "assailants" have, nor their targets.
Those doing wrong should be stopped -- to protect the innocent.
However ---- what some of us are saying is -- if the 'law' is allowed to 'crucify' someone for the slightest 'infraction' of the law ( a letter-of-the-law mentality ) -- it will ultimately do more harm than good...
It is a fact!
Think about it...
I keep saying "legal perspective"; you keep saying "racial slur"...
You are standing in the forest staring intensely at a single tree.
Back up until you can see the whole forest -- or, at least, more of it.
Someone could call me 'honky' all day long, and I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. You know - "consider the source" and move on. After all -- I am an adult who has a secure emotional stability that can handle some 'name-calling'... ( "words-only" )
But -- start waving a gun around ( "action" ) -- and, you have my attention...
Surely you agree that a threat from someone holding a gun pointed in your direction would be a much more serious issue than any 'racial slur' that they might speak.
Why then are you so "hung up" on the 'racial slur' part of this story ---- as if it was the "worst" crime committed...???
It is the part of this statement that is not bolded that you are not properly understanding from his point of view. The "real" impact from this statement is in the part that is not bolded.
It is describing a scenario in which the "law" tramples citizens without sufficient cause.
It is describing a scenario in which the "law" tramples citizens without sufficient cause.
Last edited:
W
In the United States of America we have the freedom to insult and say awful things. That is freedom of speech.
I have been called about every name in the book. They have the RIGHT to do it.
I mistakenly went through a black neighborhood, In my bright red 3/4 ton Ford. I was yelled at and called every racist name in the book. To the point that didn't stop for red lights and just got out of there. I "felt" threatened, but not one black person ever actually threatened my verbally with violence or bodily harm.
They are FREE to do it to me, if they want. I didn't like it or enjoy though.
I have been called about every name in the book. They have the RIGHT to do it.
I mistakenly went through a black neighborhood, In my bright red 3/4 ton Ford. I was yelled at and called every racist name in the book. To the point that didn't stop for red lights and just got out of there. I "felt" threatened, but not one black person ever actually threatened my verbally with violence or bodily harm.
They are FREE to do it to me, if they want. I didn't like it or enjoy though.
I will have to say that the two defendants got what they deserved. At first I did think it was a bit harsh . I had to look hard to find out why so many charges. Turns out it's not all about the events at the party . The party was where it ended . These nut jobs drove around two countries in 6 pickups causing a accident at a intersection,threatening people with guns prompting several 911 calls .Even the judge in the case remarked that it was odd they weren't arrested the first day . Also the most damaging testimony in the case came from 13 other co defendants in the original charges . . Yes the couples friends saved their own skins and told all .
Acording to what I read about the two week trial about a quarter of the trial focused events before the party . Also the defendants went to the party twice. They first stoped and shouted and got out and threatened party goers . They left in their trucks. They returned some time later and that's when the shotgun was pulled among two other weapons . During trial the two defendants lost all credibility when caught in lies . They told several different accounts of what happened. The two defendants did admit to threats on the road during the trial but said they did not threaten the kids or party goers .
There are some things to keep in mind about the whole thing and why they got the harsh sentence . Other weapons were brandishing before the events at the party . At the party a shotgun knife and tire iron was used in a threatening way . There were 15 people in the defendants group all adults. 25 people at the party 13 under the age of 14 . The defendants made two trips to the party.
yea my opinion they got what they deserved.
Blessings
Bill
Acording to what I read about the two week trial about a quarter of the trial focused events before the party . Also the defendants went to the party twice. They first stoped and shouted and got out and threatened party goers . They left in their trucks. They returned some time later and that's when the shotgun was pulled among two other weapons . During trial the two defendants lost all credibility when caught in lies . They told several different accounts of what happened. The two defendants did admit to threats on the road during the trial but said they did not threaten the kids or party goers .
There are some things to keep in mind about the whole thing and why they got the harsh sentence . Other weapons were brandishing before the events at the party . At the party a shotgun knife and tire iron was used in a threatening way . There were 15 people in the defendants group all adults. 25 people at the party 13 under the age of 14 . The defendants made two trips to the party.
yea my opinion they got what they deserved.
Blessings
Bill
Now imagine that a group of black people came into your neighborhood, drove in front of your house and started to yell all sort of stuff at you... wouldn't you feel (without quotation marks) even more threatened and intimidated? Wouldn't you call the police? How would you feel if the police told you "oh, sorry mate, they're just expressing their beliefs, they're exercising their freedom of speech".
W
Yes. And yes, I would probably call the police.(wouldn't want to wait and see if they intended harm.)
And with your hypothetical........I have seen countless times that the police said," Sorry Sir, they did say some stupid idiotic things, but they didn't trespass, and they did not verbally threaten you. We can't do anything."
And I just noticed, that your flag is not United States. And this makes more sense to me now. I am guessing that is why this sounds so foreign to you.
And with your hypothetical........I have seen countless times that the police said," Sorry Sir, they did say some stupid idiotic things, but they didn't trespass, and they did not verbally threaten you. We can't do anything."
And I just noticed, that your flag is not United States. And this makes more sense to me now. I am guessing that is why this sounds so foreign to you.
So you're not saying "freedom of speech should not cover insults?" If I don't understand, please clarify because I'm confused now.
As for your question of "how can anyone criticize someone for being black?" I can answer that. Because some people are extremely ignorant... but if we lock up everyone who is ignorant, then we would all be in prison with no one to guard us.
As for your question of "how can anyone criticize someone for being black?" I can answer that. Because some people are extremely ignorant... but if we lock up everyone who is ignorant, then we would all be in prison with no one to guard us.
