You do know that you can do that without making an announcement. And lolPutting you on ignore.![]()
At the Canadian pilgrim boy and his pet Asian pilgrim dapping you. Black posters don’t fuk with you no more after that last reveal - you know it’s over.


You do know that you can do that without making an announcement. And lolPutting you on ignore.![]()


Fam, do you have trouble comprehending what you hear? LOL
How many hosts were there? One guy dipped before they got to the relevant statutes, then the host said based on what was in Texas law he felt it was justified. The other 2 couldn’t refute that.How many legal experts were on the video?
How many hosts were there? One guy dipped before they got to the relevant statutes, then the host said based on what was in Texas law he felt it was justified. The other 2 couldn’t refute that.

I didn’t post the link, and have no clue who those people are. I’m don’t care about virtual wins. Put up some cash. No murder conviction. How much you willing to part with? That will be a winHe was claiming it was "assault" and therefore "burglary" as his claimed relevant statute. It was a fukking streeeeeetch as hell. And even befor then he said, "it's not a clear-cut case" and "I'm not arguing for the shooter because I agree with that case, I'm just saying it's a difficult case."
Both of the others who are talking were arguing it's not self-defense and the host says his right-wing audience is split as well. In the end they eventually stop arguing with the host because he's the host, but they had already made themselves clear.
You seriously have to take the most EXTREME pro-gun anti-black right-wing legal show you could possibly fine, and even they're split on whether it's self-defense, and you think that's a win.![]()
he wasnt acting up though
he was having a conversation about his kid with the mother of his child.
he was there for a reason
only a weak man brings a gun into a situation like that. no ones life was in danger.
And dude who got smoked couldve left and contacted the law regarding his kid
I didn’t post the link, and have no clue who those people are. I’m don’t care about virtual wins. Put up some cash. No murder conviction. How much you willing to part with? That will be a win
Right... That's why I say it wasn't pride more than it was frustration and anger. Dude was talking about taking everybody to court. Clearly ol girl is scum. You could tell that just by some of her answers.
You can either respect people’s boundaries and personal space, and live a nice long life, or don’t and become a case study on thecoli.com while pushing daisies. I know how people are with guns and brash decisions, and move accordingly. People running around threatening folks on their property, or pointing shower heads at cops, or trying to fight some geezer over a handicapped parking spot could have used some better judgement. Ultimately we both know no conviction will come from this. Which is the point. And dudes dead. All because he couldn’t just walk away and take shyt to the courtroomIt's Texas and the white guy is a conservative activist who was married to a judge. He's fukking connected as hell. How does a decision on THAT case have anything to do with right and wrong or the actual law?
* They all agreed castle doctrine plays no part because there was no forced entry
* They all agreed that "deadly force" starts the moment the first supposed warning shot was fired. At that point the victim hadn't done jack shyt other than what the host called "nipple rubbing". He hadn't even reached for the gun when he CLEARLY had every opportunity to grab it long before the shot was fired.
* They all agreed him grabbing for the gun after the shot was fired is self-defense from legal force
* Everyone other than the host agreed that the perp killed him from 10 feet away when the victim had his hands at his sides and was not doing jack shyt threatening and had no reason to be shot. The host didn't even explain clearly why he disagreed, he just said some "I dunno...." bullshyt.
* In the end the host tried to claim the victim was committing burglary justify lethal force, which was CLEARLY wrong and is the sort of legal argument you make when you have no case.
I should have said I was done with you way back already. You agree with this shooting shyt way too often to be taken seriously.
That got me too. Im stealing that phrase- I’m starting a new wave of referring to cacs as “pilgrims and fellow pilgrims”. Rep to anyone using the term henceforth.
The tide has changed- these coli pilgrims are about to be mad asf in a frenzy.
![]()

I was actually thinking about doing thatUh-oh. We got a replacement for "Cac" in the works?
Better make a thread and get that started asap.



