Final Investigation Report Is IN on Covington Catholic Incident

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Ouch !! 😎Stung like a bee

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Ouch !! 😎Stung like a bee

Set up like a bowling pin.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee." XD

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Yea that is not the interviews i saw. I seen him on tmz. From what i understand he was in the military and if that was during the time of the war then he would have received a medal for wartime service. If he has a medal for wartime service then people claiming he is not a vet would have to pay if he sued.

I can say i am a war veteran even though i never stepped foot in the sand....

From what i did hear yes he had 3 deserts and got out out at the rank of e1 but that would not negate his service during wartime.

I can not believe how much defaming people get away with on this site. Personally i enjoy the different opinions but there is a certain level of ignoring facts that goes on unchecked and cheered.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

He flat out states he went to Vietnam.
I can only assume you're intentionally missing that.
Add to that the flat out proven lies he told to get those kids pilloried on social media.
For doing what?
Trying to drown out a homophobic racial hate group.

A situation in which said liar interposed himself into in order to show "solidarity" with the homophobic racial hate group based solely on their skin color.
Why exactly are you trying so hard to defend him?
His race?

As for your virtue signal.....
Right.
Take a moment to attend to your plank before you presume.
Ok?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I just know he is a veteran. He may have went to war zone and left or he may have just been speaking in general terms about being in the military during vietnam.

One thing for sure is the boys were not supposed to be counter protesting in that area at that time cause they had no permit but the other two groups did. There will be no lawsuits for these reasons i state to you. You may not like them or agree with them and they do not represent my personal opinion on the groups but they are facts.

Now as far as the letters of intent sent around i think they served their job to quieten everyone that was going off in all different directions on the subject but there is really no meat for either side to make a defamation case.

If you roll around in bull crap you will get it on you. I hope the boys take this away from the event cause there is no shortage of hate groups that get permits to spread their hate.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You are woefully uninformed for one who wants to talk about this so much.
They were waiting for a bus and the group I mentioned earlier started harassing them.

Again, I ask why are you so keen to defend a proven liar?
His racial background?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You are woefully uninformed for one who wants to talk about this so much.
They were waiting for a bus and the group I mentioned earlier started harassing them.

Again, I ask why are you so keen to defend a proven liar?
His racial background?

I happen to like truth and context. It is not that i want to defend anyone but i want to spread truth.

Truth is that the boys were on film in that area for hours claiming to be waiting on a bus. It is not a bus stop and they did not have a permit to counter the protest that were ongoing. So if they would have just went on their way then none of this mess would have happened.

I have said it before that i am grateful that the school went out of their way year after year to go to the national mall and protest abortion. That is a good thing. However their is no grounds for lawsuits for the events that took place after their permitted protest was over and they were lawfully bound to clear the area and make way for other permitted protest. It was a bad lesson they learned that day and for there benefit people should tell them the truth instead of politicizing the later events.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Still trying to push that 'counter protest' nonsense?

You have not shown what permitted protest the kids were supposed to have been counter protesting.

How does the National Park Service define demonstration and special event?

While the definitions are fully detailed at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(i) and (ii), the following two terms are defined in these instructions:

DEMONSTRATION generally includes speechmaking, picketing, vigils, marching or religious services etc., and all other like forms of conduct which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.

SPECIAL EVENT generally includes sports events, runs/races, parades, fairs, festivals or any activity which is not a demonstration.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR NPS FORM 10-941,“APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ADEMONSTRATION OR SPECIAL EVENT IN PARK AREAS”(direct .pdf link)

The National Mall is public space, and even permitted events cannot exclude the general public from gathering in those places; make note of the portion in the above excerpt which states, "which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers."

The kids were engaged in none of the above activities; all they were doing was merely waiting on their bus when they were harassed by the black racists and eventually Nathan Phillips and his group.

What the kids were doing was using an easily recognizable location as a pre-arranged rendezvous point in order to gather and wait for their bus.

There actually is a public transportation bus stop at the Lincoln Memorial, not to mention the possibility that a chartered bus might use the spot at the Lincoln Memorial for pick up; other groups have used the space in a similar manner.

Make note of the google map screenshot below:


The red circle indicates the location at which the incident between the black racists, Nathan Phillips and the kids took place.

You can see this for yourself if you follow this link

See the bus stop icon? Note that there are two buses being loaded or unloaded in the screenshot.

Your continued attempts at deflecting from the facts are poor execution on your part.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Waitin on the bus for hours and hours and on camera asking chaperone if they could do school chants to counter the ongoing protest.


Tell it to the judge.lol

There is no lawsuits cause there is no case.

If you want to try to claim that there were not permitted protest going on at the time then that is on you cause all that info has been posted.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Waitin on the bus for hours and hours and on camera asking chaperone if they could do school chants to counter the ongoing protest.


Tell it to the judge.lol

There is no lawsuits cause there is no case.

If you want to try to claim that there were not permitted protest going on at the time then that is on you cause all that info has been posted.

Kind of telling that everybody and I MEAN EVERYBODY has backed off the kids except you. LOL so theoretically your client can get off the snide by apologizing, but as their attorney, you are going to advise them to fight it, using the flimsy counter-protest permit argument What gives?

a reply to: putnam6

Facts are facts. The boys were in no way responsible parties in the situation. They were chaperoned. If i were a lawyer and a lawsuit was filed then yes i would win based on the facts.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

If the kids had been loitering, then the capitol police would have asked them to move elsewhere. Since the capitol police did not, it is reasonable to conclude that the kids were not in any way on the wrong side of any law.

At this point all we can do is wait for more developments.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

Facts are facts. The boys were in no way responsible parties in the situation. They were chaperoned. If i were a lawyer and a lawsuit was filed then yes i would win based on the facts.

The facts that they were or were not slandered? You believe they were not slandered by the media and individuals based on that they didn't have a counter-protest permit. No protest permit you must acquit... Id be more certain they are already getting NDA settlement discussions from a number of the participants,especially the networks.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

If the kids had been loitering, then the capitol police would have asked them to move elsewhere. Since the capitol police did not, it is reasonable to conclude that the kids were not in any way on the wrong side of any law.

At this point all we can do is wait for more developments.

That is bs spin and you know it. You can wait forever then. The boys were on film loitering for hours.

You seem to try to claim that as long as one does not get caught then no crime can be committed.

a reply to: putnam6

Iam telling you they brought it on themselves. The cease and desist letters were necessary but there is no case there.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

Iam telling you they brought it on themselves. The cease and desist letters were necessary but there is no case there.

If the cease and desist letters were valid, then there is showing a legal basis for potential lawsuits.

By your theory, if someone goes to a crime-ridden area and gets mugged, the victim is at fault cause they should have known that could potentially happen.

These kids didn't take the edited video and play it in sound bites over and over that the media was decrying as racist little bigots.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

Iam telling you they brought it on themselves. The cease and desist letters were necessary but there is no case there.

If the cease and desist letters were valid, then there is showing a legal basis for potential lawsuits.

By your theory, if someone goes to a crime-ridden area and gets mugged, the victim is at fault cause they should have known that could potentially happen.

These kids didn't take the edited video and play it in sound bites over and over that the media was decrying as racist little bigots.

You are beating a dead horse.

If there was a case then the lawyers would pursuing such.

No i am not saying if you get mugged then you deserve it.

I am saying that if you see a group of people protesting and saying awful hateful things and they have a permit to be there and you do not then you can not lawfully counter their hate in the manner we seen in this case.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You still haven't shown anyone to have had a permit to be where the kids were accosted. I know better than to ask because all you ever reply with is worthless drivel however.

Keep digging that hole though.