Dammit people, Pinky aint the black dude, it was what the bag stealing ho was calling the white guy, derogatorily might I add. Here is the best run down of what probably happened, I stole it from another site. Pinky clearly wasn't backing down and with his Chinaman reference, albeit without it's derogatory meaning in this instance, I'll bet he served in Vietnam... Anyway, here's the rundown of what probably happened. this is what i've loosely gathered: white man sits in back of bus black man is insulted and says "what? you want a shoe shine?" white man says "sure". black man accuses white man of being racist for accepting the offer. white man claims that he would have accepted a shoeshine from a chinaman, denying that he is racist. white man knows this is pointless because fighting the black man would be the same as fighting a child, and moves to front of the bus. black man won't stop antagonizing bear-like ex-marine (tattoo on arm?) who is wearing a shirt that says "I AM a mother####er" white man says "i've seen tough guys like you. i slapped the #### out of 'em" black man says "WUT!?" and hits white man. beating ensues. black man claims he will "#### you up" to the white man one more time, but white man doesn't hear it. woman filming picks up white man's bag. takes it back to her seat and says "dig through that ####".
What is all the discussion about -- if a man needs a spit shine you give him a gawd damn spit shine. No Homo.
Watch that Next Friday video I posted on the last page. I think she is just copying what the Black guy is saying, and referring it to Pinky in Next Friday.
Walking away was the last "right thing" that he did. I don't see how the escalation afterwards can be pinned only on one person. Both sides were responding with threats and insults, and neither had the foresight to cut it out as the situation became increasingly volatile. I have a problem when, in conflicts like this, people want to pin responsible only on one side. It takes two idiots that don't know how to behave properly to create a situation like that. Just because one guy is acting like a dumbass, that doesn't give license to other to respond in kind.
I would like to see that old guy in a cage match or bare-knuckles street fight. He looks like he would beat some ass with his old man strength and post-Nam rage.
I'll agree to a certain extent but, in certain situations and with certain people, acting civilized will only set yourself up to be further victimized. It's the old give 'em an inch and they will take a mile.
EFB was not defending his position. "I'm going to put my foot up your ass" is not a position. If the content of my posts in this thread amounted to that, then feel free to tell me to shut up.
I guess the thought is that, while both are responsible...one is MUCH, MUCH more responsible for the events that ensued. They could have gone on yelling forever, and neither guy would be "at fault". But because the black guy chose to escalate it, it escalated. Yes, the white guy could have shut his mouth. But just because someone doesn't take pre-emptive action doesn't make them responsible for actions that may or may not have occurred regardless. By calling the white guy responsible, I think too many assumptions are being made...whereas we can say with much more likelihood that, if the black guy didn't go up to the front and/or start the violence, then it wouldn't have occurred (sorry for the double negative haha.. i think it's understandable though)
Okay. Defending yourself, then. In the simplest of terms, neither of you are willing to back down, and based on his response to me that is what FT was saying.
Perhaps, but I don't think this was such a situation. People are glossing over the fact that the black guy told the old guy to go the other side of the bus. Neither was looking for a fight to start with, but because both of them were also unwilling to put their ego aside and let it go, it escalated into violence.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fTIbFJrUYF0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fTIbFJrUYF0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I didn't say the old guy was at fault simply because he didn't want to back down. Sometimes, not backing down is a virtue. Sometimes, it really doesn't matter either way. And sometimes choosing not to back down is harmful. You judge actions by the range of potential consequences.
durvasa, you're one of my favorite posters on this board, but we definitely don't see eye to eye on this one. You're saying that because the black guy told the white guy to "go sit yo ass down and get the f*** out my face!" that means he wasn't looking to start a physical confrontation? Strange, because after the white guy did sit down, the black guy went out of his way to walk the length of the bus TWICE to go confront the white guy and then he punched him in the chest (the fact that it was a lame punch is irrelevant). It's not as if he said "Please go sit on the other end of the bus, sir. I don't want to fight you."
