U sound scared

Or at the very least confront the guy. Threaten him. Let him know what's up.

The police aint gonna do shit. Even if they do "arrest" him for trespassing they're going to release him right away or just issue a citation. He'll be right back on the property if he feels like it.

People need to get over the whole, "police will handle it" thing. The police aren't going to handle shit.

Lots of dumb advice in this thread. Engaging in a physical confrontation that could have been avoided is always dumb. The guy might have a weapon, he might be cracked out and not feel fear or pain. He might come back later armed. He might come back later after seeing your fancy gun and steal all your fancy guns for some easy cash. You might lose. You also might pummel him like a true Billy Badass and then he lawyers up and cleans you out. You KO him with one swing like John Wayne but he dies, now you're going to prison. Even confronting him in a threatening way is a big risk because you don't know what he's capable of. Just stupid.

Best outcome is that he voluntarily leaves, after being convinced he wants to by the police or someone besides you. Next best outcome is that someone else makes him leave, like law enforcement.

The only reason I am doing this guy harm is if he's in my house and I have no other choice. Even then, do you know the size of the checks you're going to be writing to lawyers to try to stay out of jail? And the further stacks when his family lawyers up to try to piggybank you?

The worst thing that could happen is that he does you harm, the second worst thing that could happen would be if you did some to him.

And why can't that "Someone else" or "Someone besides you" just be Billay?

Im not saying for Billay to go pick a fight, but to assert his will. Confront him. Tell him what's up. Establish the fact that homie is being watched and he needs to kick rocks. You'd be surprised how often people back down and comply once they realize someone is actually there and not willing to put up with their shit.

I'm not saying you need to bust our brandishing a gun or anything like that. But locking your door and calling the police just isn't going to get you very far. Especially if the dude doesn't give a damn about the police.

Living in/near Downtown San Diego almost all my life i've had to deal with plenty of homeless and tweakers. It's why i say cops won't do shit. I know first hand. And those ****s will push as far as you let them.

Just don't end up like this guy, crying on local news about how he'll "never drive down that road again" because he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile, whatever middle school kid he's crying about is sitting in his bedroom trying to run up his Call of Duty kill streak.

Nonsense.

1. Point 1 is correct. Please cite legal authority if you wish to dispute it.

Police SAY they exist to "Protect and Serve" but this is a lie.

When it comes right down to it, there is no legally enforceable obligation for police to protect you. The Supreme Court established this rule in 1989 (DeShaney vs. Winnebago County)

At best, you might be able to file a complaint to a police department about an officer's failure to take action. AT MOST, the officer could face some kind of internal review. But you can't win a tort suit against the police department or an individual officer for failing to protect you, even if a police officer sits on his/her hands and watches while a perp empties a machine gun clip into your head. This officer will also face no criminal culpability for failing to take action.

If, for example, you faint in an alley and fall underneath the exhaust of an idling truck while a police officer sits in his cruiser munching on a Dunkin Doughnut and streaming your death to Facebook live, your family still can't sue. The officer won't go to prison or even get charged with a misdemeanor.

The worst that will happen to him/her is to get fired due to public pressure, but this only would happen based on the internal standards of the police department. MAYBE the state legislature might vote to compensate you, but it won't be compelled by law. It would essentially be a fairy godmother gift from our political masters.

4. Exacty when does talking to police help a suspect's case? Tell me. I'd be interested in hearing this.

The problem for a citizen talking to police is that you never know if you're a suspect or not, and it's perfectly legal for police to lie to you. In fact, police ARE TRAINED TO LIE TO YOU in many situations.

For example, you cite the possibility that not talking to police can lead to an obstruction charge. ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT POLICE REGULARLY ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY BY MAKING UP CHARGES IF A CITIZEN ANNOYS THEM?

Citizens have no obligation to talk to police. The safest course of action is to not talk to them.

Here is criminal law professor James Duane on this subject:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d-7o9xYp7eE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

2 & 3. Uhhh, it also applies if you're a suspect in a crime. Saying that it only applies if you committed a crime assumes that police only charge guilty people. This isn't the case. For example, Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011 b/c they found 20 wrongful convictions out of 305 on death row (which is a 6% error rate).

And, as I mentioned above, a citizen can never know if they're a suspect b/c police can lie to you about your status.

Go up to the mountains in NorCal and in some cases good luck even having law enforcement get there that day. Only to have to be escorted into the property when they do arrive.

This is admittedly a long post but there is a lot of mis-information. As background, I have represented numerous people involved in self defense situations and I teach the legal portion of CCW classes in my state. TL;DR version: Johnny is right on point even if I might not handle the situation exactly like he does.

CC states that Johnny is wrong on point 1 regarding police duty to individuals. Actually, Johnny is correct. In Deshaney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” This means that the State has NO duty to protect any individual. So, imagine that cops are sitting at the station, drinking coffee, eating donuts and watching Jerry Springer when they get a 9-1-1 call that a madman has broken into a woman’s house with an axe. They shrug their shoulders and go back to Jerry Springer. The madman rapes and kills the woman. Are they liable? No. Families of deceased students from the Stoneman school shooting sued the police and guess what? Their case got dismissed because cops are not liable.

https://bit.ly/3PwirZR

Johnny is also correct on point 4. Police reports are inadmissible hearsay. Anything you say, though, is a statement by a party opponent and is generally admissible. If, though, you say anything in your favor, you don’t get to introduce it through someone else. That’s called ‘self-serving hearsay’. You have to take the stand. So why shouldn’t you talk to cops if you’re involved in a self-defense situation? There are a few reasons:

Your senses may deceive you. In such a situation, your fight or flight response can distort what you perceive. As a result, your statements, while you earnestly believe them, may be contradicted by the physical evidence. In such an instance, the discrepancy will not be viewed as the statement of a person who’s just undergone a very serious and traumatic situation but instead viewed as a guilty party lying to avoid culpability for a crime. CC may disagree but I’ve seen it happen to my clients.

You don’t know what other evidence there is. Your statement may be contradicted by someone else.

You don’t know who the cops are or who prosecutor is or how they will view matters. You might live in a pro-gun state but have an anti-gun cop or prosecutor.

To avoid criminal, and I stress criminal, liability, you do not have to be right. You just have to be reasonable. It’s why cops can shoot someone pulling out a wallet. It’s a ‘reasonable’ mistake.

So what do you say if you’re involved in a self defense situation? “Officer, that person tried to [kill/stab/shoot/attack/whatever] [me/spouse/partner/child]. I believed he was going to [seriously injure/kill/rape/wound][relevant party] and so I stopped him. Now, I want to talk with my lawyer. I am not making any statement without my lawyer.” You can’t waffle on this last point. You have to demand a lawyer. Saying, “Maybe I should get a lawyer” or “I think I should get a lawyer” is not enough. You have to affirmatively say “I want to talk with my lawyer.” Johnny’s point to say “I want a lawyer” repeatedly, almost mantra-like, is EXCELLENT advice.

What I suggest saying is admittedly a bit more than Johnny advises to say. I will admit that the topic of what to say after a self defense shooting/incident is debated in the CCW community. I favor this approach because it puts the cops on notice right away that you are claiming self defense but it does not give any details that can be used against you later if you are incorrect for the reasons stated above. Further, while ‘self-serving hearsay’ is inadmissible, it can be used to impeach the police if you do go to trial. Your attorney can ask something like, “Dan Defendant told you that he believed Dead Guy was going to hurt him, didn’t he?” The prosecutor may object but the answer is, “Not hearsay because I am impeaching the investigation as will be shown by my follow up questions.” And then your lawyer goes on to talk about the scene: gun/knife near dead guy’s hands; dead guy was not welcome in the house; etc. The point is that it is used to show that you claimed self defense immediately and the investigation was biased against the defendant.

So I disagree with Johnny on that point but I won’t say he’s wrong. Whether you have to identify yourself prior to arrest can also vary based on state law. If the event happens at your house, I would probably identify myself just to establish that I had the right to be there and to get the benefit of the doubt that comes from the event being in your own home. If this happened elsewhere, I would think about whether I should identify myself. If a cop was being very forceful and demanding that I ID myself, I likely would because the place to argue with a cop is in court, not at the scene. Further, even if I have the right to not ID myself and he’s demanding I do so, I can pretty much guarantee my failure to ID myself will get me arrested. May not be right but that’s just reality.

As a general rule, you can use force of any type when you meet 2 criteria: 1) you believe that you are about to be injured, attacked, whatever; and 2) that believe is reasonable. So saying “He was coming at me with a knife so I shot him” sounds good until it’s pointed out that the guy was 75 yards away. At that point, your belief is not reasonable and you don’t have the right to use force.

You can use deadly force if you can use force (see above) and deadly force is necessary to prevent murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, child sexual assault, or arson. Some states may grant the right to use deadly force against additional crimes but those are generally the ones that most commonly justify allowing deadly force.

As a general rule, you cannot use deadly force to defend property. There are some limited exceptions in different states so check your own state laws but the exceptions usually limit allowable deadly force to prevent a burglary or arson on an occupied dwelling so even there the focus is really on protecting life, not property. But you should absolutely check your own state laws and talk with an attorney about this. This is also why you should never say, “I was defending my home.” Defending your home does not give you the right to use deadly force. Defending your own person or your wife or children or guest in your home can.

Johnny’s point #2 is generally correct about deadly force. In many places you can use non-deadly force to stop a trespass at your house but that is limited to using the necessary non-deadly force to remove someone. So you can’t just beat the shit out of them but you can tell them to get off your property and escort, maybe even push them off your property, although probably not off a third-floor balcony.

At this point, this fellow has established that he will not willingly go away. You should contact police every time he comes by if for no other reason than to establish the number of times he will not leave. This will establish the reasonableness of your mindset should the situation escalate in the future. You can firmly escort him from your premises. I don’t know what your state law says about you being armed in that situation. In some states, mine is one and it’s based upon a Texas case so I presume Texas is this way as well, a citizen can arm himself in anticipation of a potential conflict and still keep his right to use deadly force in self defense should the need arise. Put another way, the mere act of having a firearm on your person, assuming its legal otherwise, does not make you the initial aggressor per se.

I don’t know if you are in an apartment complex or if you own a condo. Either way, one thing you can do is to give him a trespass notice. Get something from the apartment manager or condo association in writing. Make a copy so you can have a record of what it says. Make sure it cites to the relevant statutes in your state. Film yourself giving it to him so that you have a record that he is on notice to not come around. Other than forcing him off your property without beating the shit out of him, there is not much you can do if all he’s doing is hanging around your building.

Your neighbor might be in a different situation. You say he climbed on her deck on the third floor. If it’s a deck such as in a condo or apartment and it’s only her deck, that is, the only way off the deck is either climb down or through her apartment/condo, that becomes far more troubling, particularly since she’s female and he’s male. The size discrepancy will definitely be a factor in determining whether any self defense is reasonable. If I were the neighbor, I would get a gun that I could use and if he was on my deck, I would get my gun and I would escort him from my property at gunpoint while on the phone with the police. Someone that unstable who is present on a deck that should have limited access is definitely a threat and I do not believe that her escorting him from her apartment with a firearm would create any legal issues in most jurisdictions. Some notoriously anti-gun jurisdictions, such as NY, NJ, or Hawaii, there might be issues related to the gun.

I know this answer is long but these can be intensely factual situations. You should really talk with a lawyer in your state about the specifics of your state law. Once you commit to using force of any kind, particularly deadly force, your choices will be intensely analyzed and scrutinized. You absolutely should get competent legal advice from your own state about what your state laws do and do not allow. I would look at USCCA or LawShield or Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and see if there is an attorney that is part of their organization near you. Call them and pick their brains. They would be an excellent resource because legal advice from the internet will likely land you in jail.

I cannot recommend that video enough.

I don't have anything like your experience in criminal law. I have a degree, passed the bar and briefly practiced patent law.

A number of years ago, I did brush up on criminal law b/c a health care IT firm I was with was trying to win a government contract in the Philippines, which involved local partners.

This situation made me intently study a very obscure part of federal criminal law: the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This is an odd area of law enforced by a special FBI unit, and I've never seen more than 22 reported legal cases in a year. [P.S. I've read EVERY reported case under this act going back to when it was passed in 1977.]

I'm also familiar with health care fraud and abuse (from the POV of a health care IT provider), which can have criminal implications in certain situations.

It was the discussions about how to structure that foreign partnership deal that made me watch James Duane's material on talking to police and some of the more recent 4th and 5th amendment cases.

Patent law is way beyond my bailiwick. Most of my work these days is in federal court so I've dealt with medicare fraud (quite boring) and I had a client who was tangentially involved with FCPA. Odd is a good way to describe it but it certainly isn't my main area of practice. If I have a case involved with that, I will DM you. And if you are ever coming to Alaska, drop me a line. I'll be happy to give you some boots on the ground advice.

If he is in kc we got a bounty hunter we can help

According to the courts, the police do not have an obligation to protect you from anything.

Offer him a sandwich and poison the shit out of it.

Homeless guy looking for shelter
Christplanet:shoot him

That’s not the only option. You can also poison him

Do u give money to the homeless man by the taco bell on 87th?

you should ask him if he wants to be filled up with Monkey pox.

Set out a bowl of antifreeze for him.

That it thoughtful. Especially on a chilly fall/winter night, warm him right up.

We have 6 of these https://www.wyze.com/ wireless, and they automatically record and are bluetoothed to our phones.

Time for another installment of this week in ChiefsPlanet.

This homeless guy camp close to you?

You know the nice thing about not living in the hood?

No homeless people

So the fantastic advice you're giving here is:
" Do nothing to protect yourself or your property and pray like hell that the woman upstairs has the balls to handle it for you."

Nice

More James Duane on 4th and 5th amendment cases that have compromised our constitutional rights.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-FENubmZGj8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm willing to bet that it's one of the Talib brothers.

I have my doubts because Billay wasn't shot.

legally speaking the best advice I can give you is the next time you see him around just start yelling racial insults. out of realism don't limit these insults to black people. spread it around. Chinese, Mexicans, even Hungarians or Latvians etc. Just let your imagination run wild. make it loud enough for the neighbors to hear/film.

You should chase him in your truck with your Dad driving and you in the back with a gun...

Don't forget to have the neighbor film it.

I would have shot the guy with a bazooka for sure!

A jizz bazooka lmao

hell yeah - all drank to that! Epic af if that happened!

Next time you see him, start jerking off. When he notices what you’re doing ask him to help. He may want to split bills with you and move in.

Next time he comes around tell him you're gay as **** and craving BBC.

Report back!

What if he has monkeypox

Use leather as a barrier protector.

That's straight from the CDC.

Give the guy directions to Clay's house.

Idk man that chick gave me her number she's hot enough to make me never post gay shit on here again

She’s definitely hotter than The Catch 3.0.

The 3.0 is her generous ranking on a scale of 1-10.

I got a guy who can help

https://youtu.be/pPd67CEL54E

We can only hope.

You make a lot of good counterpoints. And I mostly agree with much of your post so I didn’t quote the whole novel. I didn’t respond to Johnny, because I can recognize a dead horse argument. But to clarify on our disagreements.

Point one is technically correct because of qualified immunity (which is actively being overturned in many states and missouri is trying to as well). The individual officer may not get sued. But many are fired, and the city pays liable suits in criminal, civil and even DOJ civil rights investigations that are deemed “lawful” interactions.

So how is that perceived as an officer doesn’t have to protect you? Under qualified immunity the personal assets of the officer and their family is protected. Because they make shit money. But they are an instrument of the governing body in the jurisdiction where they are called to service. You can bet your sweet ass if they freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat, you can definitely take civil recourse against that governing body.

So. Point one is deceiving.

And on to the reports being hearsay. I can’t wait for a DP to try and trip me up on my testimony and cite my report. Because that never happens…………….

Reports are seized as evidence and treated the same as statements and even physical evidence. A DP may TRY to make a report considered as hearsay, but that would be a case by case basis, not a guaranteed defense to prosecute.


But on a lighter note, keep doing the good CCW stuff, you are an educational bridge between the unknowing, unwilling, ignorant YouTube lawyers like Johnny and the unknowing trying to just understand the world we all live in.

Everyone should know their rights, but I agreed with your post saying how you would interact in a very unfortunate situation. That’s so much better than the “just don’t talk to cops” crowd. Because, brother, people are taking that message literally. About anything. And it’s not helping bridge the disconnection with civilians and LEOs.

Now I have to go to work, get flipped off by 9 year olds, and called a racist 16 times. And that’s hoping for a good day. Peace out.

Rent a guard dog and unleash it on him when he’s trespassing.

with Drano in his OJ...

When you see him, start rolling a condom on and when he notices tell him “You’re just in time”

You can't rent a guard dog. A rented guard dog doesn't know you paid for him to be on your side. It would very likely just attack the person renting it way before any guarding could be done.

I am hoping you can prove me wrong though, ngl.

I do enjoy the naivete though.

Makes me wonder how many people have had actual LEOs do something to help them in their lifetime...

I see where you are mistaken. You assert that police officers can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights, which is correct. But police officers cannot be sued for failing to act. So cops sit and do nothing while they know that someone is breaking into your house? No liability.

Civil suits are suits in torts. Torts have 4 basic elements: duty; breach; causation; damages. The DeShaney case I referred to earlier said that cops have NO duty to protect an individual. There are other Supreme Court cases that say the same thing. If there’s no duty, there can be no breach and thus no liability. The cops in Uvalde, for example, cannot be found liable for just standing around while the guy shot kids and teachers in school.* This is extremely relevant to issues of self defense because it shows that you have no legal justification to rely upon police protection so you should be prepared to defend yourself.

Cops can get sued, though, if they do respond and violate someone’s rights. And many of those suits are pre-empted by qualified immunity, which holds that police are immune from suit if their actions are not a clear violation of constitutional standards. A ‘clear violation’ essentially means that there is prior case law on that subject. It has gotten so strict that it seems that if there is not a case exactly on point, courts find QI. A good source of information about qualified immunity is from the Institute for Justice’s website:

https://ij.org/issues/project-on-imm...ccountability/

The Cato Institute is also active in seeking to end QI. Ironically, neither the Institute for Justice nor the Cato Institute are viewed as left-wing, anti law-and-order groups.

Thus, the arguments that you make about civil lawsuits and QI are not applicable in this case. It is not that it is deceiving but we are talking about two very different issues. When you say that “you can take civil recourse against [a] governing body” if “they [law enforcement] freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat,” that is just wrong as a matter of law.

As far as police reports, I have never seen them entered as exhibits. I receive them all the time in discovery and I use them to prepare for trial and for cross-examination but in all my jury trials, and I’m north of at least 50, probably 60, felony trials, no police report has ever been admitted because they are hearsay and admission of the report violates my client’s right of confrontation. Maybe they get admitted in civil cases. I don’t know. I’ve never tried a civil case.

I think part of the issue may be in how we are defining terms. When I say ‘admit as evidence,’ I mean that an actual copy of the police report is accepted by the court as evidence and then sent back to the jury when the case is finished. That never happens. But a police officer’s report can be used to impeach an officer’s investigation or observation. It can be used to refresh someone’s recollection. Police officers frequently say, “I cannot remember the answer. Can I refer to my report?” So while the officer may silently read the report, the officer cannot read the report into the record, nor can the report go back to the jury during deliberations. Neither of those can happen because the report is hearsay.

* I said that individual police cannot be held liable. I did not say that they cannot be sued. Anyone can sue anybody else for anything. But as I pointed out in the article I cited, any lawsuit against individual police or police departments will be thrown out at the beginning.

CC, the suits you refer to are brought under various legal theories of police misconduct (1983 violation, which is federal law civil rights, excessive use of force, etc.) So, yeah, the police departments can be sued, but they can't be sued for failing to protect you.

If the police do protect citizens, (which I do not deny happens) it's sort of a bonus or gift from the state that citizens cannot expect or demand in any way.

Qualified immunity is an offshoot of sovereign immunity, which is a legal precept that goes back to English common law. The whole idea of sovereign immunity is that the crown is immune to laws that apply to everyone else. In essence, these legal duties are something that people lower in the hierarchy have to people higher in the social pyramid, but these duties (where sovereign immunity applies) don't run the opposite way.

So when you say that if police overtly fail to protect you, that citizens can sue the state or local government, that's not true. Unless the police officer violates your civil rights or abuses you, you can't sue.

You might be thinking of a number of cases where municipalities end up compensating citizens when police execute a no knock warrant and they make a mistake about the address. Some tragic cases occur where the unknowing citizen defends themselves with a weapon and gets shot or killed.

The reason a citizen can sue in this situation is not a negligence theory in tort, it's because the warrant is defective and thus their civil rights were violated.

In fact, the state can abuse citizens in rather extreme ways while still remaining immune to tort liability.

Let's take a Kansas case from 5 or 6 years ago. LaMonte McIntyre was wrongfully convicted of murder 1 and spent 22 years in prison before getting exonerated by DNA evidence.

The police investigation and trial were a complete clown show of incompetence and unethical conduct by EVERY PHASE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

1. Witness tells police that the shooter "looked like my neice's boyfriend LaMonte"

2. Neice's bf had an ironclad alibi (he was in another city when the shooting took place), but police apparently searched their database for perps named "LaMonte" and came up with a 17-year-old kid with a marijuana possession conviction. Unfortunately for LaMonte McIntyre, he played hookey from school that day and thus had opportunity to commit murder.

3. They take LaMonte's picture to the witness (along with other photographs) and she picks out the kid. Note, no lineup was ever done. The photos had the perps' names on the back and it's highly likely the police nudged the witness toward the "right" photo.

4. Police never search LaMonte's home for the murder weapon, clothes he supposedly was wearing, no chemical tests for residue, no testing his clothes or body for physical evidence linking him to the scene. They simply rely on the eyewitness identification.

5. LaMonte's public defender was later disbarred for incompetence. At trial, the public defender doesn't even challenge the police's ID method, which was in the case file.

6. Kansas later censured both the trial judge and the prosecutor for having an affair and not recusing themselves from cases where they had a clear conflict of interest.

7. The witness tells the prosecutor after the trial that LaMonte couldn't be the killer because he was too short. The prosecutor told the witness that she couldn't do anything about it because the case was with the jury. BTW, this is a blatant and unethical lie for which she should have been disbarred. Instead, she should have called for an immediate conference with the judge and opposing counsel and disclosed this new, exculpatory evidence. BTW, 22 years later, this woman was a federal prosecutor and suffered no consequences b/c the statute of limitations had passed on her conduct. So she didn't even face censure from the KS or Missouri bar.

8. Juror stated after the trial that she thought the state's evidence was questionable, but that LaMonte had to be guilty because his defense attorney didn't seem to be trying very hard.

9. Every aspect of the criminal justice system failed LaMonte: police, defense attorney, prosecution, judge and jury. ANY ONE OF THEM DO THEIR JOB AND HE DOESN'T SPEND 22 YEARS IN PRISON.

10. However, under Kansas law, LaMonte couldn't sue because he received "due process" (a jury trial of his peers with defense counsel).

11. KS state legislature voted to make a special exception for him, and awarded LaMonte $1.5 million for the 22 years he spent in prison and released him as a 44-year-old.

The police investigation of LaMonte was completely incompetent and probably conducted in bad faith, yet LaMonte couldn't sue on that basis. The whole idea that they finger another "LaMonte" as the suspect really screams racism to me. Would this have happened if he was a preppy kid named "Chad" and was going to Rockhurst High? Not likely. A Rockhurst student would have judges, prosecutors, private defense lawyers, law professors, senior police officers, city officials as alums that would make sure that doesn't happen to someone from their community.

I know this b/c I'm a Rockhurst High alum. Hell, just off the top of my head, I could call a number of former federal and Jackson county prosecutors for help, along with a Jackson county city council member who are all former classmates of mine. And I haven't lived in KC in more than 20 years.

Look, I hate screaming racism b/c I think that's WAY overblown in our society. As a half-Filipino who looks completely Caucasian I KNOW most white people don't sit around looking to oppress people of color. However, I do think racism had to be there in the McIntyre case.

Idiot ****ers posting on this thread, and tittie may have had a life altering damn I don’t know what the word is for it, but shut the **** up for a second and impress on this guy to use that phone number for crying out loud.

sec

Rubber snakes. a camera and post him on youtube.