For the most part not many will even get the reference, but yeah maybe it was a wee insensitive. But if I can go into the 2001 draft and bbs clutchfans overall bust mode for a bit, that's turning out not to be a hate crime and just 2 stupid hoochie mamas acting like 2 stupid hoochie mamas. The victim was getting beaten for some remark to hoochie's guy, not for his/her gender. /2001 draft clutchfans loser mode
I agree. I've just read through this thread and it is pretty sad that there is at least one post outrightly justifying the beating and several posts that while decrying the amount of violence think that the victim deserved to be punished.
I read through the thread pretty fast so you might but I would have to go back through the thread to see which specific post. I was mostly thinking of a post on one of the early pages where a poster wrote they would "beat the tranny" and RR's posts which while he said he didn't agree with the level of violence advocated some form of punishment and essentially blamed the victim.
It turns out the 18-yr old has been in trouble for assault at the same McD's in the past. I wasn't sure I previously agreed with the term "animals" when referring to the attackers, but that sure sounds like a good description after reading that she previously attacked another woman and her young daughter. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/mcdonalds-attacker-prior-bust-908732
Sounds like the girl doing the attacking has an ugly complex. She must truly be ugly. If not on the outside, then definitely on the inside. What goes around....comes around. She will get hers in the end and be on the wrong end of one of these incidents one of these days. Oh, look! She's attacking me in my work cubicle now. GET OFF ME, UGLY!
Good episode. Really shows that transsexualism goes beyond just the common belief of mentally unstable people choosing to be "different".
Tie her tubes and deport her to another country. She doesn't deserve to procreate or live in a civilized society.
somewhat unrelated to this thread, but if you read the link there, you'll not the attacker in this case "got off" last time because the victim dropped the charges? I don't really understand that. I guess they were saying the victim's story was the only evidence and she basically changed her mind? It still reads as is after they were identified by the victim, they no longer denied involvement, so it was clear now they did attack the lady? So my question is, why didn't they continue to prosecute? It doesn't seem to make sense that when a crime is committed, the person committing the crime can not be punished simply because the victim chooses not to "press charges". The crime was committed regardless.
Its possible that the prosecution felt they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute without the victims cooperating. From reading the article perhaps Mrs. Dower didn't want to put her daughter who was also assaulted through the rigors of a trial.
yeah, not sure if I buy this story, either. Doesn't jive with the police story, which was "she wouldn't leave the bathroom." I think this is a clever way to get back on the attackers, by saying it was all over a man.
Generally in a battery case the only evidence is the testimony of the victim or any witnesses. If the victim refuses to testify and there are no other witnesses, the prosecutor really has no evidence to present, so the charges are dropped. This happens a lot in domestic violence cases when the wife just doesn't show up. The story they told to the cop cannot get in if the victim doesn't testify because it is hearsay (and there are confrontation clause problems).
The police report does not provide a motive, but quotes one of the suspects saying that the fight was "over using a bathroom." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...gender-woman-rosedale-restaurant-video-spread My guess is when they found out she used the woman's restroom it gave them another reason to confront her.
